Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P.)

2. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sitaram Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45659 of 2024 (Kunwar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.).

4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Kunwar Pal Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 594 of 2024, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District - Hapur.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire proceedings of trap were conducted at the police station and not at the place of occurrence. It is submitted that there is no video recording of the alleged incident of trap and as per the statement of informant the recording as done was on mobile of proceedings at the police station which would have a direct impact on the sanctity of the trap proceedings. It is further submitted that there was no occasion for the applicant to demand any money as the work of the original complainant was already done and thus demanding 2 BAIL No. 10299 of 2025 and accepting money for future transactions is totally unreasonable. It is further submitted that Section 103 (4) B.N.S.S. and Section 105 B.N.S.S. have not been followed at the time of the proceedings in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of (i) Varun Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2008, (ii) Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No. 1327 of 2008 (iii) Raja Khan Vs. State of Chattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2025 (2025 INSC 167). The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 33 and is in jail since

07.09.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court. It is submitted that the reason for going to the police station after raid and conducting further proceedings therein are recorded the recovery memo satisfaction. It is submitted that there is recovery of huge amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- from the possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that trial in the present matter is going on in which statement of P.W.-4 has been recorded and thus it cannot be said that there is any delay in the trial. It is submitted that there is no new & fresh ground to interfere in the present second bail application.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2024, the same reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Vineet Pandey and Sri Pranvesh, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Kunwar Pal Singh with the following prayers: "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased o allow this application and direct the court below to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 594 of 2024, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District - Hapur, during the pendency of the trial before the Trial Court."

3. The case originates on a complaint dated 02.09.2024 made by Dhoom Singh of M/s 3 BAIL No. 10299 of 2025 Chaudhary Securities Service and Placement, Hapur with an allegation that the applicant is posted as Junior Engineer in Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur, has demanded bribe of Rs.2,30,000/- to clear future bills of the original complainant. It further states that previous bills were cleared and payments were done after which the original complainant was called by the applicant and demand of money was made for ensuring smooth and timely clearance of his future bills for work done. On the said complaint, pre-trap proceedings were done subsequent to which a trap was laid on 07.09.2024 and it is alleged that the applicant was apprehended accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,30,000/- which was recovered. Recovery memo and arrest memo were prepared, on the basis of which the present F.I.R. has been lodged.

4. Learned counsels for the applicant submitted as under: (i) The applicant is posted as Junior Engineer in Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur. (ii) On 06.08.2024 the applicant had given a letter to the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad informing that the original complainant has been working without any valid bid since the last 6-7 years and no tender thereafter was floated and thus he had objected to it and has fear of harm to him, annexure no. 10 has been placed for the same. (iii) Further the applicant and two other officials had cleared bill of original complainant for the month of August 2024 for Rs.2,66,600/- and the same was forwarded to the Executive Engineer, annexure no. 12 to the affidavit has been placed for the same. (iv) Executive Engineer, Nagar Parishad, Hapur had sent a letter to A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue), Hapur dated 05.02.2024 informing him that Chaudhary Securities Service and Placement the firm of the original complainant and M/s Sahul Both, Contractor, have been working on one work order only and having inappropriate profit. They on seeing that the bidding is to be done through JEM Portal are making several complaint. (v) The trap was although alleged to have been laid on 07.09.2024 and although his arrest has been shown from his house, but the formalities were completed later on at a different place. The recovery and arrest memo state that at the time of his arrest, there has been a commotion by the crowd collected there which is not possible since the place of occurrence is shown to be the house of the accused which was inside Nagar Palika Parishad campus. (vi) Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted 30.10.2024, annexure no. 13 to the affidavit has been placed for the same and as such there are no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence and not co-operating in investigation. (vii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-25 of the affidavit and is in jail since

08.09.2024.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted as under: (i) The applicant is posted as Junior Engineer in Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur. 4 BAIL No. 10299 of 2025 (ii) There is a demand of bribe and acceptance of it by the applicant which thus completes the chain of offence. (iii) The bribe was demanded and accepted by the applicant on his saying that future bills of the original complainant shall be cleared by him. (iv) The proceedings of trap have been video-graphed and there are three recordings and clippings about the same and as such sanctity of it cannot cannot be doubted and were genuine and actual proceedings. (v) There is a recovery of Rs.2,30,000/- from the applicant which is bribe money which was demanded by him and was accepted and pre-trap proceedings were done which corroborate with the allegation of the original complainant and then on the basis of which, trap-proceedings also have been done which corroborate with the same. (vi) There is no reason for false implication of the applicant. (vii) The recovery of huge money and planting of it, is impossible. (viii) The prayer for bail thus be rejected.

6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is posted as a Junior Engineer in Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur. The case is of demanding Rs.2,30,000/- as bribe from the original complainant for clearing his future bills. The fact that the original complainant was also working in the said department as a contractor is not disputed. The proceedings were initiated on a complaint of the original complaint subsequent to which pre-trap inquiry was done and then trap was laid, arrest and recovery has been done, proceedings were also recorded. The recovery is of huge money and planting of it, is impossible, the chain thus gets completed.

7. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, no ground for bail is made out.

8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."

8. After proceedings of trap the accused and the raiding team went to the police station and completed the trap proceedings therein. The reason for going to the police station is duly recorded in the arrest and recovery memo which is quite persuasive. In so far as the applicability of Section 103 (4) B.N.S.S. and Section 105 B.N.S.S. are concerned, the same do not attract in the present matter as the present matter relates to laying of trap in a corruption matter and arrest and recovery of bribe money. The judgements relied by learned cousnel for the applicant in the cases of Varun Chaudhary, Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen and Raja Khan (supra) are concerned, 5 BAIL No. 10299 of 2025 relate to recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The same is totally different with that of recovery done in a trap in a matter of corruption. The trial is under progress in which the testimony of four witnesses have been recorded. The release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect in the trial.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. October 13, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sitaram Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45659 of 2024 (Kunwar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.).

4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Kunwar Pal Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 594 of 2024, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District - Hapur.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire proceedings of trap were conducted at the police station and not at the place of occurrence. It is submitted that there is no video recording of the alleged incident of trap and as per the statement of informant the recording as done was on mobile of proceedings at the police station which would have a direct impact on the sanctity of the trap proceedings. It is further submitted that there was no occasion for the applicant to demand any money as the work of the original complainant was already done and thus demanding 2 BAIL No. 10299 of 2025 and accepting money for future transactions is totally unreasonable. It is further submitted that Section 103 (4) B.N.S.S. and Section 105 B.N.S.S. have not been followed at the time of the proceedings in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of (i) Varun Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2008, (ii) Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No. 1327 of 2008 (iii) Raja Khan Vs. State of Chattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2025 (2025 INSC 167). The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 33 and is in jail since

07.09.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court. It is submitted that the reason for going to the police station after raid and conducting further proceedings therein are recorded the recovery memo satisfaction. It is submitted that there is recovery of huge amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- from the possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that trial in the present matter is going on in which statement of P.W.-4 has been recorded and thus it cannot be said that there is any delay in the trial. It is submitted that there is no new & fresh ground to interfere in the present second bail application.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2024, the same reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Vineet Pandey and Sri Pranvesh, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Kunwar Pal Singh with the following prayers: "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased o allow this application and direct the court below to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 594 of 2024, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District - Hapur, during the pendency of the trial before the Trial Court."

3. The case originates on a complaint dated 02.09.2024 made by Dhoom Singh of M/s 3 BAIL No. 10299 of 2025 Chaudhary Securities Service and Placement, Hapur with an allegation that the applicant is posted as Junior Engineer in Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur, has demanded bribe of Rs.2,30,000/- to clear future bills of the original complainant. It further states that previous bills were cleared and payments were done after which the original complainant was called by the applicant and demand of money was made for ensuring smooth and timely clearance of his future bills for work done. On the said complaint, pre-trap proceedings were done subsequent to which a trap was laid on 07.09.2024 and it is alleged that the applicant was apprehended accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,30,000/- which was recovered. Recovery memo and arrest memo were prepared, on the basis of which the present F.I.R. has been lodged.

4. Learned counsels for the applicant submitted as under: (i) The applicant is posted as Junior Engineer in Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur. (ii) On 06.08.2024 the applicant had given a letter to the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad informing that the original complainant has been working without any valid bid since the last 6-7 years and no tender thereafter was floated and thus he had objected to it and has fear of harm to him, annexure no. 10 has been placed for the same. (iii) Further the applicant and two other officials had cleared bill of original complainant for the month of August 2024 for Rs.2,66,600/- and the same was forwarded to the Executive Engineer, annexure no. 12 to the affidavit has been placed for the same. (iv) Executive Engineer, Nagar Parishad, Hapur had sent a letter to A.D.M. (Finance and Revenue), Hapur dated 05.02.2024 informing him that Chaudhary Securities Service and Placement the firm of the original complainant and M/s Sahul Both, Contractor, have been working on one work order only and having inappropriate profit. They on seeing that the bidding is to be done through JEM Portal are making several complaint. (v) The trap was although alleged to have been laid on 07.09.2024 and although his arrest has been shown from his house, but the formalities were completed later on at a different place. The recovery and arrest memo state that at the time of his arrest, there has been a commotion by the crowd collected there which is not possible since the place of occurrence is shown to be the house of the accused which was inside Nagar Palika Parishad campus. (vi) Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted 30.10.2024, annexure no. 13 to the affidavit has been placed for the same and as such there are no chances of the applicant tempering with the evidence and not co-operating in investigation. (vii) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-25 of the affidavit and is in jail since

08.09.2024.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted as under: (i) The applicant is posted as Junior Engineer in Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur. 4 BAIL No. 10299 of 2025 (ii) There is a demand of bribe and acceptance of it by the applicant which thus completes the chain of offence. (iii) The bribe was demanded and accepted by the applicant on his saying that future bills of the original complainant shall be cleared by him. (iv) The proceedings of trap have been video-graphed and there are three recordings and clippings about the same and as such sanctity of it cannot cannot be doubted and were genuine and actual proceedings. (v) There is a recovery of Rs.2,30,000/- from the applicant which is bribe money which was demanded by him and was accepted and pre-trap proceedings were done which corroborate with the allegation of the original complainant and then on the basis of which, trap-proceedings also have been done which corroborate with the same. (vi) There is no reason for false implication of the applicant. (vii) The recovery of huge money and planting of it, is impossible. (viii) The prayer for bail thus be rejected.

6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is posted as a Junior Engineer in Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur. The case is of demanding Rs.2,30,000/- as bribe from the original complainant for clearing his future bills. The fact that the original complainant was also working in the said department as a contractor is not disputed. The proceedings were initiated on a complaint of the original complaint subsequent to which pre-trap inquiry was done and then trap was laid, arrest and recovery has been done, proceedings were also recorded. The recovery is of huge money and planting of it, is impossible, the chain thus gets completed.

7. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, no ground for bail is made out.

8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."

8. After proceedings of trap the accused and the raiding team went to the police station and completed the trap proceedings therein. The reason for going to the police station is duly recorded in the arrest and recovery memo which is quite persuasive. In so far as the applicability of Section 103 (4) B.N.S.S. and Section 105 B.N.S.S. are concerned, the same do not attract in the present matter as the present matter relates to laying of trap in a corruption matter and arrest and recovery of bribe money. The judgements relied by learned cousnel for the applicant in the cases of Varun Chaudhary, Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen and Raja Khan (supra) are concerned, 5 BAIL No. 10299 of 2025 relate to recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The same is totally different with that of recovery done in a trap in a matter of corruption. The trial is under progress in which the testimony of four witnesses have been recorded. The release of the applicant at this stage may have an adverse effect in the trial.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. October 13, 2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad