The Apex Court in the case of Soundarajan v. State represented by the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anti Corruption Dindigul

1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, there is some mistake in the prayer clause of instant anticipatory bail application, therefore, he filed amendment application in this regard.

2. Considering the ground taken in the amendment application, the amendment application filed by the applicant is allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary amendment in the prayer clause of the instant application during the course of the day itself. Order on Anticipatory Bail Application

1. Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0128 of 2025, under Sections 13 and 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Phase-1, District Commissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on the basis of viral video against applicant on 05.04.2025 and as per FIR through video it was revealed that applicant, who was Sub Inspector in U.P. Police, was receiving bribe from a person.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits, applicant is Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter through the viral video.

6. He further submits, there is no evidence that applicant made any demand of bribe but in spite of that merely on the basis of viral video he was terminated from the service. He next submits, when he challenged the termination order before this Court in Writ A No. 6546 of 2025 then on 14.05.2025 his petition was allowed and thereafter he has been reinstated. He further submits, the FIR of the present case has been lodged only to tarnish the social image of the applicant.

7. He further submits, investigation of the case is still pending and applicant is having apprehension that he will be arrested in the present matter.

8. He further submits, therefore, considering the facts of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant should be allowed.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits, applicant is Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and he received bribe from the driver of one Kaushal Kishor and this fact is evident from the statement of driver of Kaushal Kishor namely Sachin recorded during investigation but could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence on record which can suggests that applicant made any demand of bribe.

10. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that termination order passed against the applicant has been set aside by this Court and thereafter applicant has been reinstated in the service.

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

12. However, as per allegation, applicant was Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and he received bribe from one Sachin and there is also a viral video on record and during investigation, Sachin in his statement also stated that he gave Rs. 20,000/- to the applicant but from the entire material available on record, it could not be reflected that applicant made any demand of bribe.

13. The Apex Court in the case of Soundarajan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anti Corruption Dindigul (2023) 16 SCC 141 held that for offence under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act it is also necessary that accused made a demand of bribe.

14. Further, on the basis of above allegation applicant was terminated from the service but when he challenged the termination order before this Court then this Court on 14.05.2025 set aside his termination order and it appears, thereafter he has been reinstated.

15. Further, it appears, the track record of the applicant till date was unblemished. Further, investigation of the case is pending, therefore, apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant cannot be ruled out.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

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

18. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Pradeep Kumar Gautam, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions:- i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

19. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

20. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, there is some mistake in the prayer clause of instant anticipatory bail application, therefore, he filed amendment application in this regard.

2. Considering the ground taken in the amendment application, the amendment application filed by the applicant is allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary amendment in the prayer clause of the instant application during the course of the day itself. Order on Anticipatory Bail Application

1. Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0128 of 2025, under Sections 13 and 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Phase-1, District Commissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on the basis of viral video against applicant on 05.04.2025 and as per FIR through video it was revealed that applicant, who was Sub Inspector in U.P. Police, was receiving bribe from a person.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits, applicant is Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and on the basis of false allegation, he has been made accused in the present matter through the viral video.

6. He further submits, there is no evidence that applicant made any demand of bribe but in spite of that merely on the basis of viral video he was terminated from the service. He next submits, when he challenged the termination order before this Court in Writ A No. 6546 of 2025 then on 14.05.2025 his petition was allowed and thereafter he has been reinstated. He further submits, the FIR of the present case has been lodged only to tarnish the social image of the applicant.

7. He further submits, investigation of the case is still pending and applicant is having apprehension that he will be arrested in the present matter.

8. He further submits, therefore, considering the facts of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant should be allowed.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits, applicant is Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and he received bribe from the driver of one Kaushal Kishor and this fact is evident from the statement of driver of Kaushal Kishor namely Sachin recorded during investigation but could not dispute the fact that there is no evidence on record which can suggests that applicant made any demand of bribe.

10. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that termination order passed against the applicant has been set aside by this Court and thereafter applicant has been reinstated in the service.

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

12. However, as per allegation, applicant was Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and he received bribe from one Sachin and there is also a viral video on record and during investigation, Sachin in his statement also stated that he gave Rs. 20,000/- to the applicant but from the entire material available on record, it could not be reflected that applicant made any demand of bribe.

13. The Apex Court in the case of Soundarajan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anti Corruption Dindigul (2023) 16 SCC 141 held that for offence under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act it is also necessary that accused made a demand of bribe.

14. Further, on the basis of above allegation applicant was terminated from the service but when he challenged the termination order before this Court then this Court on 14.05.2025 set aside his termination order and it appears, thereafter he has been reinstated.

15. Further, it appears, the track record of the applicant till date was unblemished. Further, investigation of the case is pending, therefore, apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant cannot be ruled out.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

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

18. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Pradeep Kumar Gautam, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions:- i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

19. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

20. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad