High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Sukhpal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Srivastava,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Neeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State and Sri C.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for complainant of the case.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 150 of 2025, under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Debai, District Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits, applicant is Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and as per allegation one Yash Pratap moved an application against the complainant and thereafter inquiry of the same was entrusted to the applicant and during inquiry applicant threatened the complainant that if he will not give Rs. 25,000/- as bribe then he will lodge case against him and thereafter he agreed for Rs. 20,000/- as bribe and on 08.03.2025 he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submits, the opponent of the complainant namely Yash Pratap moved an application against him on 27.02.2025 with the allegation that complainant is having as many as 50 cases against him and he is also supplier of illegal weapons, therefore, he should be arrested and illegal weapon should be recovered from him and on the application moved by Yash Pratap inquiry was entrusted to the applicant and after that applicant started inquiry against complainant Lalit Upadhyay.

5. He further submits, after the inquiry applicant submitted report against the complainant and this fact is evident from the G.D. entry No. 17 dated 20.10.2024 at 9.12 hours, which has been annexed at page-7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 30.06.2025 filed in support of instant bail application and thereafter on 03.03.2025 history-sheet of the complainant has been opened as complainant was having criminal history of 13 cases and this fact has been specifically disclosed by the applicant in paragraph-19 of the affidavit filed in support of instant bail application.

6. He further submits, as on the report submitted by the applicant history-sheet against the complainant was opened, therefore, he became highly annoyed with the applicant as he wanted that applicant should submit report in his favour, therefore, on the basis of false and frivolous allegation he moved an application next day i.e. on 04.03.2025 that applicant is making demand of bribe from him and thereafter on the basis of false trap applicant has been roped in the present matter on 08.03.2025 with connivance of the Trap Team.

7. He further submits, even from the FIR of the present case it reflects, the recovery memo and other documents of the case have not been prepared at spot and the same were prepared at Police Station Dibai, however, spot is the Police Chowki of the applicant which was situated in the jurisdiction of Police Station Naraura and this fact again casts doubt on the trap proceedings.

8. He further submits, investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed and maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act is of seven years and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 08.03.2025.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and he misused his position and demanded bribe from complainant and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 20,000/- and at this stage there is no reason to disbelieve the trap proceedings.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant further submits, Yash Pratap Singh is highly inimical with the complainant and therefore on the basis of false facts, he moved application against him and under the pretext of his application applicant tried to extract money from him, therefore, applicant does not deserve bail but neither learned counsel for complainant nor learned AGA could dispute the fact that recovery memo and other documents of the trap proceedings have not been prepared at spot where trap was made rather these documents were prepared at different police station.

11. They further could not dispute the fact that on 03.03.2025 on the report submitted by the applicant history-sheet of the complainant had been opened and next day i.e. 04.03.2025 complainant moved an application against applicant that he is demanding bribe from him.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that maximum punishment provided under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is of seven years and investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is in jail since 08.03.2025.

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

14. However, as per allegation, being Sub Inspector in U.P. Police applicant misused his position and made demand of bribe from the complainant as he was entrusted inquiry against him and thereafter he was arrested on 08.03.2025 by the Trap Team red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant but it reflects, from the FIR that recovery memo and other documents have not been prepared at spot where trap was made and these documents were prepared at different police station namely Police Station Dibai. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact costs serious doubt on the trap proceedings, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

15. Further, record also suggests that complainant moved an application against applicant with regard to demand of bribe on 04.03.2025 and a day before i.e. 03.03.2025 his history-sheet has already been opened on the report submitted by the applicant as complainant was having criminal history of 13 cases. Considering this fact, even the argument advanced by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant in this regard, cannot be brushed aside at this stage.

16. Further, apart from the present case applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed and in the present matter and applicant is in jail since 08.03.2025.

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

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

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

20. Let the applicant - Sukhpal 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.

21. 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.

22. 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 :- 11.7.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Sukhpal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Srivastava,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Neeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State and Sri C.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for complainant of the case.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 150 of 2025, under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Debai, District Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits, applicant is Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and as per allegation one Yash Pratap moved an application against the complainant and thereafter inquiry of the same was entrusted to the applicant and during inquiry applicant threatened the complainant that if he will not give Rs. 25,000/- as bribe then he will lodge case against him and thereafter he agreed for Rs. 20,000/- as bribe and on 08.03.2025 he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submits, the opponent of the complainant namely Yash Pratap moved an application against him on 27.02.2025 with the allegation that complainant is having as many as 50 cases against him and he is also supplier of illegal weapons, therefore, he should be arrested and illegal weapon should be recovered from him and on the application moved by Yash Pratap inquiry was entrusted to the applicant and after that applicant started inquiry against complainant Lalit Upadhyay.

5. He further submits, after the inquiry applicant submitted report against the complainant and this fact is evident from the G.D. entry No. 17 dated 20.10.2024 at 9.12 hours, which has been annexed at page-7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 30.06.2025 filed in support of instant bail application and thereafter on 03.03.2025 history-sheet of the complainant has been opened as complainant was having criminal history of 13 cases and this fact has been specifically disclosed by the applicant in paragraph-19 of the affidavit filed in support of instant bail application.

6. He further submits, as on the report submitted by the applicant history-sheet against the complainant was opened, therefore, he became highly annoyed with the applicant as he wanted that applicant should submit report in his favour, therefore, on the basis of false and frivolous allegation he moved an application next day i.e. on 04.03.2025 that applicant is making demand of bribe from him and thereafter on the basis of false trap applicant has been roped in the present matter on 08.03.2025 with connivance of the Trap Team.

7. He further submits, even from the FIR of the present case it reflects, the recovery memo and other documents of the case have not been prepared at spot and the same were prepared at Police Station Dibai, however, spot is the Police Chowki of the applicant which was situated in the jurisdiction of Police Station Naraura and this fact again casts doubt on the trap proceedings.

8. He further submits, investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed and maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act is of seven years and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 08.03.2025.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and he misused his position and demanded bribe from complainant and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 20,000/- and at this stage there is no reason to disbelieve the trap proceedings.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant further submits, Yash Pratap Singh is highly inimical with the complainant and therefore on the basis of false facts, he moved application against him and under the pretext of his application applicant tried to extract money from him, therefore, applicant does not deserve bail but neither learned counsel for complainant nor learned AGA could dispute the fact that recovery memo and other documents of the trap proceedings have not been prepared at spot where trap was made rather these documents were prepared at different police station.

11. They further could not dispute the fact that on 03.03.2025 on the report submitted by the applicant history-sheet of the complainant had been opened and next day i.e. 04.03.2025 complainant moved an application against applicant that he is demanding bribe from him.

12. They further could not dispute the fact that maximum punishment provided under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is of seven years and investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is in jail since 08.03.2025.

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

14. However, as per allegation, being Sub Inspector in U.P. Police applicant misused his position and made demand of bribe from the complainant as he was entrusted inquiry against him and thereafter he was arrested on 08.03.2025 by the Trap Team red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant but it reflects, from the FIR that recovery memo and other documents have not been prepared at spot where trap was made and these documents were prepared at different police station namely Police Station Dibai. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact costs serious doubt on the trap proceedings, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

15. Further, record also suggests that complainant moved an application against applicant with regard to demand of bribe on 04.03.2025 and a day before i.e. 03.03.2025 his history-sheet has already been opened on the report submitted by the applicant as complainant was having criminal history of 13 cases. Considering this fact, even the argument advanced by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant in this regard, cannot be brushed aside at this stage.

16. Further, apart from the present case applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed and in the present matter and applicant is in jail since 08.03.2025.

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

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

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

20. Let the applicant - Sukhpal 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.

21. 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.

22. 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 :- 11.7.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad