State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2025, under Sections 7 P.C. Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Revenue Inspector (Kanoongo) and as per allegation, an application under Section 24 U.P. Revenue Code was pending before SDM concerned and to submit report in that case applicant made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter he was apprehended red handed while he was receiving bribe money of Rs. 15,000/- from him but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

5. He next submits, actually SDM concerned never marked the pending case of complainant to the applicant and therefore, there was absolutely no occasion either for applicant to make demand of bribe or for complaint to give bribe to the applicant.

6. He further submits, during investigation Investigating Officer made 2 BAIL No. 26073 of 2025 certain queries from the SDM concerned and SDM concerned submitted his reply, which has been annexed at Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 15.09.2025 and it reflects, record of the case of complainant was handed over on 10.10.2024 to Ranvijay Yadav the another Revenue Inspector and after his retirement the case was marked to Ramesh Pandey and from the reply of SDM concerned it could not be reflected, the case was ever entrusted to the applicant.

7. He next submits, even from the FIR it reflects, after the alleged trap the recovery memo and other documents relating to trap have not been prepared at spot and same were prepared at police station and this fact casts serious doubt on the alleged trap proceedings.

8. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has been concluded and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 21.05.2025 i.e. for last four months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant was Kanoongo and he misused his position and he not only made demand of bribe but bribe money of Rs. 15,000/- was also recovered from his possession and he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team but could not dispute the fact that as per complainant applicant was making demand of bribe to submit report on the case of the complainant which was pending in the court of SDM concerned but during investigation some queries were made by Investigating Officer from the SDM concerned and from his reply it reflects, the case of complainant was never marked to the applicant.

10. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects, recovery memo of the trap has not been prepared at spot and same was prepared at police station. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has already been completed and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 21.05.2025 i.e. for last four months.

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

12. However, applicant was Revenue Inspector and as per allegation, to submit report in the case of complainant filed under U.P. Revenue Code he 3 BAIL No. 26073 of 2025 made demand of bribe of Rs. 15,000/- and he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe money from him but it reflects, during investigation Investigating Officer made certain queries from the SDM concerned with regard to the case of complainant which was pending under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code and from Annexure-SA-I of the supplementary affidavit dated 15.09.2025 filed in support of instant bail application, it reflects, on the query made by Investigating Officer SDM concerned submitted its report on 08.07.2025 and as per reply given by SDM concerned, the case of complainant has not been handed over to the applicant and the same was firstly entrusted to Ranvijay Yadav and subsequently to Ramesh Pandey. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that there was absolutely no occasion either for applicant to make demand of bribe or for the complainant to give bribe to the applicant cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

13. Further, even from the FIR of the present case it reflects, recovery memo of trap proceedings has not been prepared at spot and it reflects, recovery memo of the trap has been prepared at police station. Considering this fact, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the entire trap proceedings.

14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail since 21.05.2025 i.e. for last four 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 purpose.

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 -Tej Narayan 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 4 BAIL No. 26073 of 2025 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.

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

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2025, under Sections 7 P.C. Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Revenue Inspector (Kanoongo) and as per allegation, an application under Section 24 U.P. Revenue Code was pending before SDM concerned and to submit report in that case applicant made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter he was apprehended red handed while he was receiving bribe money of Rs. 15,000/- from him but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

5. He next submits, actually SDM concerned never marked the pending case of complainant to the applicant and therefore, there was absolutely no occasion either for applicant to make demand of bribe or for complaint to give bribe to the applicant.

6. He further submits, during investigation Investigating Officer made 2 BAIL No. 26073 of 2025 certain queries from the SDM concerned and SDM concerned submitted his reply, which has been annexed at Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 15.09.2025 and it reflects, record of the case of complainant was handed over on 10.10.2024 to Ranvijay Yadav the another Revenue Inspector and after his retirement the case was marked to Ramesh Pandey and from the reply of SDM concerned it could not be reflected, the case was ever entrusted to the applicant.

7. He next submits, even from the FIR it reflects, after the alleged trap the recovery memo and other documents relating to trap have not been prepared at spot and same were prepared at police station and this fact casts serious doubt on the alleged trap proceedings.

8. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has been concluded and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 21.05.2025 i.e. for last four months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant was Kanoongo and he misused his position and he not only made demand of bribe but bribe money of Rs. 15,000/- was also recovered from his possession and he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team but could not dispute the fact that as per complainant applicant was making demand of bribe to submit report on the case of the complainant which was pending in the court of SDM concerned but during investigation some queries were made by Investigating Officer from the SDM concerned and from his reply it reflects, the case of complainant was never marked to the applicant.

10. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects, recovery memo of the trap has not been prepared at spot and same was prepared at police station. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has already been completed and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 21.05.2025 i.e. for last four months.

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

12. However, applicant was Revenue Inspector and as per allegation, to submit report in the case of complainant filed under U.P. Revenue Code he 3 BAIL No. 26073 of 2025 made demand of bribe of Rs. 15,000/- and he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe money from him but it reflects, during investigation Investigating Officer made certain queries from the SDM concerned with regard to the case of complainant which was pending under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code and from Annexure-SA-I of the supplementary affidavit dated 15.09.2025 filed in support of instant bail application, it reflects, on the query made by Investigating Officer SDM concerned submitted its report on 08.07.2025 and as per reply given by SDM concerned, the case of complainant has not been handed over to the applicant and the same was firstly entrusted to Ranvijay Yadav and subsequently to Ramesh Pandey. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that there was absolutely no occasion either for applicant to make demand of bribe or for the complainant to give bribe to the applicant cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

13. Further, even from the FIR of the present case it reflects, recovery memo of trap proceedings has not been prepared at spot and it reflects, recovery memo of the trap has been prepared at police station. Considering this fact, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the entire trap proceedings.

14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail since 21.05.2025 i.e. for last four 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 purpose.

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 -Tej Narayan 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 4 BAIL No. 26073 of 2025 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.

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