Heard Sri v. K. Mishra

2. Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

3. Heard Sri V. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.

4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0114 of 2020 (Special Case No. 1037 of 2021), under Sections 7/13 P.C. Act, Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and as per allegation informant on 16.05.2020 gave him Rs. 8,000/- as bribe which was demanded by him but entire allegation leveled against applicant is totally false.

6. He further submits, however, in the FIR it has been mentioned by the informant that there was also video of the applicant in which he was accepting bribe money from him but during investigation no such video could be recovered and when specific query was made by Investigating Officer from the complainant then he informed him that alleged video has been deleted. 2 ABAIL No. 12949 of 2022

7. He next submits, on the basis of false allegation applicant has been made accused in the present matter only because against the driver of complainant applicant took action under the provisions of Public Property Damages Act.

8. He next submits, even during investigation arrest of the applicant has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been annexed at page-69 of the paper-book.

9. He further submits, however, in the present matter charge-sheet has been filed on 22.07.2021 and on 22.09.2021 summons were issued to the applicant but when applicant came to know that cognizance has been taken then he immediately in January, 2022 filed instant anticipatory bail application before this Court but unfortunately till date it could not be decided.

10. He further submits, in the meantime court concerned issued bailable warrants against applicant but it cannot be said that applicant is trying to evade his arrest. He further submits, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till trial.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that now Bailable warrants are being issued against applicant, therefore, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 applicant does not deserve anticipatory bail. However, learned AGA could not dispute the other argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for applicant.

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

13. Applicant is a public servant and as per allegation he was Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and he made demand of bribe from the complainant of the case and thereafter he received the bribe money but it reflects, except the bald and verbal allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe there is no cogent evidence against him on record.

14. Record further suggests however initially informant in the FIR discloses the fact that there is video which indicates that applicant made demand of bribe and accepted the bribe from him but during investigation no such video could be recovered by the Investigating Officer and on query made by the 3 ABAIL No. 12949 of 2022 informant, he informed that said video has been deleted.

15. Further, arrest of the applicant has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court during investigation.

16. Further, however, it reflects, now charge-sheet has been filed and after submission of the charge-sheet during pendency of instant anticipatory bail application Bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant and as per observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) where warrants have been issued against an accused then ordinarily he should not be released on anticipatory bail but even in the case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) the Apex Court observed that in appropriate cases this Court can grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

17. Considering the facts of the case discussed above, in view of this Court, in matters like present one this Court in the interest of justice may exercise its power to release the accused/applicant on anticipatory bail.

18. 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.

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

20. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Rajkumar 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 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; ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; 4 ABAIL No. 12949 of 2022 v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

21. 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.

22. 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. September 16, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

3. Heard Sri V. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur, learned AGA for the State.

4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0114 of 2020 (Special Case No. 1037 of 2021), under Sections 7/13 P.C. Act, Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and as per allegation informant on 16.05.2020 gave him Rs. 8,000/- as bribe which was demanded by him but entire allegation leveled against applicant is totally false.

6. He further submits, however, in the FIR it has been mentioned by the informant that there was also video of the applicant in which he was accepting bribe money from him but during investigation no such video could be recovered and when specific query was made by Investigating Officer from the complainant then he informed him that alleged video has been deleted. 2 ABAIL No. 12949 of 2022

7. He next submits, on the basis of false allegation applicant has been made accused in the present matter only because against the driver of complainant applicant took action under the provisions of Public Property Damages Act.

8. He next submits, even during investigation arrest of the applicant has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been annexed at page-69 of the paper-book.

9. He further submits, however, in the present matter charge-sheet has been filed on 22.07.2021 and on 22.09.2021 summons were issued to the applicant but when applicant came to know that cognizance has been taken then he immediately in January, 2022 filed instant anticipatory bail application before this Court but unfortunately till date it could not be decided.

10. He further submits, in the meantime court concerned issued bailable warrants against applicant but it cannot be said that applicant is trying to evade his arrest. He further submits, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till trial.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that now Bailable warrants are being issued against applicant, therefore, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 applicant does not deserve anticipatory bail. However, learned AGA could not dispute the other argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for applicant.

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

13. Applicant is a public servant and as per allegation he was Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and he made demand of bribe from the complainant of the case and thereafter he received the bribe money but it reflects, except the bald and verbal allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe there is no cogent evidence against him on record.

14. Record further suggests however initially informant in the FIR discloses the fact that there is video which indicates that applicant made demand of bribe and accepted the bribe from him but during investigation no such video could be recovered by the Investigating Officer and on query made by the 3 ABAIL No. 12949 of 2022 informant, he informed that said video has been deleted.

15. Further, arrest of the applicant has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court during investigation.

16. Further, however, it reflects, now charge-sheet has been filed and after submission of the charge-sheet during pendency of instant anticipatory bail application Bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant and as per observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) where warrants have been issued against an accused then ordinarily he should not be released on anticipatory bail but even in the case of Srikant Upadhyay (supra) the Apex Court observed that in appropriate cases this Court can grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

17. Considering the facts of the case discussed above, in view of this Court, in matters like present one this Court in the interest of justice may exercise its power to release the accused/applicant on anticipatory bail.

18. 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.

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

20. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Rajkumar 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 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; ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; 4 ABAIL No. 12949 of 2022 v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

21. 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.

22. 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. September 16, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad