High Court · 2025

2. Sri Imran Ullah, Advocate submitted that he is also one of the counsel of applicant but his name could not be shown in the cause list.

3. Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 517 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kaushambhi, District Commissionerate Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was posted as Traffic Inspector and as per allegation he made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 10000/- from the complainant Ravindra Gupta and thereafter on 6.12.2024 on his instructions, they put the alleged money under a stone which was immediately recovered by the trap team but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.

6. He further submitted that admittedly the alleged bribe money i.e. illegal gratification has not been recovered from the possession of the applicant rather it was recovered under a stone and except the bald and verbal allegation, there is no evidence that on the instructions of the applicant, complainant put the money under the stone.

7. He further submitted that actually complainant wanted to run his auto illegally and being Traffic Inspector, applicant was not permitting him for the same and therefore, with the connivance of the trap team, he implicated the applicant in the present case.

8. He further submitted that track record of the applicant is clear and till date, not even a single complaint has been filed against him.

9. He further submitted that complainant of the case i.e. Ravindra Gupta has already examined by the trial court as PW-1 and applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 6.12.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was posted as Traffic Inspector and he misused his position and demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant and on his instructions when complainant put the money under the stone then the same was recovered by the trap team and there is no reason at this stage to disbelieve the story narrated in the FIR.

11. He further submitted that even at this stage, allegation levelled against the applicant by the trap team can also not be disbelieved but learned AGA could not dispute the fact that alleged illegal gratification i.e. bribe money has not been recovered from the personal possession of the applicant rather the same was recovered under a stone.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any other criminal history to his credit and his service record is clear and he is in jail in the present matter for last more than six months.

13. Further, learned AGA could not dispute the fact that complainant of the case, namely, Ravindra Gupta has already been examined by the trial court as PW-1.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. However, as per allegation applicant who was Traffic Inspector demanded bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant and thereafter he was apprehended by trap team and alleged bribe of Rs. 10,000/- was also recovered but from the record, it reflects that the alleged recovery is not made from the personal possession of applicant rather it was recovered under a stone.

16. Further, considering the fact that complainant runs auto, argument advanced by defence counsel with regard to the false implication of applicant, cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

17. Further, service record of the applicant is clear and except present case, he is not having any other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present case for last six months.

18. Further, complainant has already been examined by the trial court pursuant to the order passed by this Court.

19. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant-Hariom Rajput, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade his from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 1.7.2025/Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Sri Imran Ullah, Advocate submitted that he is also one of the counsel of applicant but his name could not be shown in the cause list.

3. Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 517 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kaushambhi, District Commissionerate Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was posted as Traffic Inspector and as per allegation he made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 10000/- from the complainant Ravindra Gupta and thereafter on 6.12.2024 on his instructions, they put the alleged money under a stone which was immediately recovered by the trap team but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.

6. He further submitted that admittedly the alleged bribe money i.e. illegal gratification has not been recovered from the possession of the applicant rather it was recovered under a stone and except the bald and verbal allegation, there is no evidence that on the instructions of the applicant, complainant put the money under the stone.

7. He further submitted that actually complainant wanted to run his auto illegally and being Traffic Inspector, applicant was not permitting him for the same and therefore, with the connivance of the trap team, he implicated the applicant in the present case.

8. He further submitted that track record of the applicant is clear and till date, not even a single complaint has been filed against him.

9. He further submitted that complainant of the case i.e. Ravindra Gupta has already examined by the trial court as PW-1 and applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 6.12.2024 i.e. for last more than six months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was posted as Traffic Inspector and he misused his position and demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant and on his instructions when complainant put the money under the stone then the same was recovered by the trap team and there is no reason at this stage to disbelieve the story narrated in the FIR.

11. He further submitted that even at this stage, allegation levelled against the applicant by the trap team can also not be disbelieved but learned AGA could not dispute the fact that alleged illegal gratification i.e. bribe money has not been recovered from the personal possession of the applicant rather the same was recovered under a stone.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any other criminal history to his credit and his service record is clear and he is in jail in the present matter for last more than six months.

13. Further, learned AGA could not dispute the fact that complainant of the case, namely, Ravindra Gupta has already been examined by the trial court as PW-1.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. However, as per allegation applicant who was Traffic Inspector demanded bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant and thereafter he was apprehended by trap team and alleged bribe of Rs. 10,000/- was also recovered but from the record, it reflects that the alleged recovery is not made from the personal possession of applicant rather it was recovered under a stone.

16. Further, considering the fact that complainant runs auto, argument advanced by defence counsel with regard to the false implication of applicant, cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

17. Further, service record of the applicant is clear and except present case, he is not having any other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present case for last six months.

18. Further, complainant has already been examined by the trial court pursuant to the order passed by this Court.

19. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant-Hariom Rajput, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade his from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 1.7.2025/Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad