Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26009 of 2025 Harinam Yadav State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Harish Chandra Yadav, Om Prakash Singh (Senior Adv.), Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Shri O. P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Harish Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.06 of 2025, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Varanasi, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant was Head Moharrir in a police station and as per allegation, he made demand of bribe of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant for lodgement of his FIR and thereafter, he was apprehended red handed by the trap team but entire allegations made against applicant are totally false. 4. He further submits that being petty constable, applicant was not having any authority to lodge the FIR and the same could only be lodged on the direction of either chowki in-charge or S.H.O. concerned and therefore, neither there was any occasion for the applicant to make demand of bribe nor there was any occasion for the complainant to give bribe to the applicant. 5. He further submits that even from the FIR, it reflects that applicant was apprehended by the trap team from the verandah of his office situated in the police station but the entire trap proceeding did not conduct at spot and after arrest, applicant has taken to the police station Shahganj and at this police 2 BAIL No. 26009 of 2025 station, recovery memo and other documents related to the trap proceedings were prepared and this fact casts serious doubt on the prosecution case. 6. He further submits that investigation of the case has already been concluded and maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years 7. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 29.05.2025 i.e. for last more than three months. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was police personnel and he was public servant and he not only made demand of bribe but bribe money was also recovered from his possession and he was also apprehended red handed by the trap team but could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it reflects, after the alleged trap, applicant has taken to the police station Shahganj and at this police station, recovery memo and other documents related to the trap proceedings were prepared. 9. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant was head constable and authority to lodge the FIR was not vested with him and the same was vested with higher police officers. 10. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has already been concluded and maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years 11. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 29.05.2025 i.e. for last more than three months. 12. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, applicant is police constable and as per allegation, he made demand of bribe from the complainant to lodge his FIR and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team but from the FIR, it reflects that applicant was apprehended from the verandah of his office situated in the police station and after the alleged trap, he was taken to the police station Shahganj and at this police station, recovery memo and other documents 3 BAIL No. 26009 of 2025 related to the trap proceedings were prepared. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the prosecution case, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 14. Further, being petty constable, applicant was not having authority either to lodge the FIR or to refuse the complainant to lodge his FIR and this authority was vested with senior police officers like chowki in-charge and S.H.O. concerned. 15. Further, investigation of the case has already been concluded and maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years 16. Further, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 29.05.2025 i.e. for last more than three months. 17. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should not be dismissed either for preventive or 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- Harinam Yadav 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 4 BAIL No. 26009 of 2025 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. September 4, 2025 Zafar (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad