State of U.P. and Another v. Counsel for

2. Heard Sri Shantanu and Sri Raghuvansh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 15 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Sub Inspector in the police department and he was Investigating Officer of a criminal case in which complainant of the present case was one of the accused and as per allegation he made demand of Rs. Ten thousand from him and threatened that if he will not give bribe to him then he will add serious offences and he will also implicate him by showing false recovery of pistol from his possession and thereafter applicant was allegedly apprehended by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant but entire allegations are totally false.

5. He further submitted that actually complainant of the present was a man of bad antecedents and he pressurized the applicant to file final report in his favour and when applicant refused to do so then with the connivance of the trap team, he implicated the applicant in the present matter.

6. He further submitted that even from the FIR it reflects that recovery memo of the alleged trap has not been prepared at spot and after the alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo was prepared and this fact casts serious doubt on the trap proceeding.

7. He further submitted that service record of the applicant till the alleged trap was unblemished and apart from the present case, he is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 5.12.2024 i.e. last more than 9 months.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case of trap and applicant being police officer not only made demand of bribe but also apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- 2 BAIL No. 21712 of 2025 from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects that after the alleged trap applicant was taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo of the trap was prepared.

9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that apart from the present case, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail for last more than 9 months. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. However, as per allegation applicant was Sub Inspector in the police department and he was Investigating Officer of a criminal case in which complainant of the present case was one of the accused and he made demand of bribe from him and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe from him but it reflects that the recovery memo of the alleged trap has not been prepared at spot and after the alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo was prepared. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the trap proceeding cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

12. Further, considering the fact that complainant was one of the accused in the criminal case in which applicant was Investigating Officer, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to false implication of the applicant can also not be completely brushed aside, at this stage.

13. Further, apart from the present case, applicant is not having any previous criminal history to this credit and it appears, till lodgement of the FIR of the present case, his service record was unblemished.

14. Further, investigation of the case has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed in the present matter and in the present matter applicant is in jail for more than nine months.

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

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

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

18. Let the applicant-Vijay Pal Singh, 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 him 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.

19. 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. 3 BAIL No. 21712 of 2025

20. 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. September 12, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Shantanu and Sri Raghuvansh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 15 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Sub Inspector in the police department and he was Investigating Officer of a criminal case in which complainant of the present case was one of the accused and as per allegation he made demand of Rs. Ten thousand from him and threatened that if he will not give bribe to him then he will add serious offences and he will also implicate him by showing false recovery of pistol from his possession and thereafter applicant was allegedly apprehended by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant but entire allegations are totally false.

5. He further submitted that actually complainant of the present was a man of bad antecedents and he pressurized the applicant to file final report in his favour and when applicant refused to do so then with the connivance of the trap team, he implicated the applicant in the present matter.

6. He further submitted that even from the FIR it reflects that recovery memo of the alleged trap has not been prepared at spot and after the alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo was prepared and this fact casts serious doubt on the trap proceeding.

7. He further submitted that service record of the applicant till the alleged trap was unblemished and apart from the present case, he is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 5.12.2024 i.e. last more than 9 months.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case of trap and applicant being police officer not only made demand of bribe but also apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- 2 BAIL No. 21712 of 2025 from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects that after the alleged trap applicant was taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo of the trap was prepared.

9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that apart from the present case, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail for last more than 9 months. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. However, as per allegation applicant was Sub Inspector in the police department and he was Investigating Officer of a criminal case in which complainant of the present case was one of the accused and he made demand of bribe from him and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe from him but it reflects that the recovery memo of the alleged trap has not been prepared at spot and after the alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo was prepared. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the trap proceeding cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

12. Further, considering the fact that complainant was one of the accused in the criminal case in which applicant was Investigating Officer, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to false implication of the applicant can also not be completely brushed aside, at this stage.

13. Further, apart from the present case, applicant is not having any previous criminal history to this credit and it appears, till lodgement of the FIR of the present case, his service record was unblemished.

14. Further, investigation of the case has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed in the present matter and in the present matter applicant is in jail for more than nine months.

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

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

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

18. Let the applicant-Vijay Pal Singh, 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 him 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.

19. 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. 3 BAIL No. 21712 of 2025

20. 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. September 12, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad