State of U.P v. Counsel for

2. Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad learned Senior counsel assisted by Mhd. Raghil Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 09 of 2025, under Sections 7 and 12 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Varanasi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was posted as booking clerk in the roadways and as per allegation complainant was driver and to allot him a particular bus, he made demand of bribe of Rs. Five thousand from him and thereafter he accepted the bribe through co-accused Rajnish and both were apprehended at spot but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submitted that being booking clerk applicant was not having any authority to allot particular bus to the complainant and authority of the same was vested with Senior Officer.

6. He further submitted that actually complainant wanted to drive a particular bus but when senior officers did not allot him his desired vehicle then he made request from the applicant but when applicant shows his inability then some dispute arose between applicant and complainant and thereafter applicant has been made accused in the present matter with the connivance of the trap team.

7. He further submitted that admittedly neither applicant received the bribe money nor bribe was recovered from his possession. 2 BAIL No. 26417 of 2025

8. He further submitted that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case and in that case applicant has been convicted and although this case relates to the section 302 IPC but said case was of the year 2001 and his appeal before this Court is pending and by the order of this Court, he is on bail during appeal.

9. He further submitted that investigation of the instant case has been completed and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 20.6.2025 i.e. for last almost three months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was public servant and he made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter he also accepted the bribe through co-accused Rajnish but could not dispute the fact that applicant was booking clerk and he was not having authority to allot particular bus to the complainant who was driver.

11. He however, further submitted that applicant is a convicted person and he has been convicted for offence of murder but could not dispute the fact that said case was of the year 2001 and applicant was convicted in the year 2015 and in 2016 he has been released on bail by the this Court and his appeal before this Court is still pending. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail for last almost three months and investigation of the case has already been completed.

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

13. However, as per allegation applicant was booking clerk in the roadways and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 5000/- from complainant and thereafter he accepted the bribe through co-accused Rajnish but it reflects he was booking clerk and being booking clerk he was not having authorities to allot a particular bus to the complainant and the authority of the same was vested with the Senior Officer.

14. Further, it reflects, bribe money has not been accepted by the applicant himself and the same was received by co-accused.

15. Further, however apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of one another which relates to Section 302 IPC and in that he has been convicted but it reflects that said case was of 2001 and applicant has been convicted in that case in the year 2015 and his appeal is pending before this Court and in the year 2016 he has been released on bail and after released on bail except the present matter, no other complaint has been made against him.

16. Further, investigation of the preent case has already been completed and in the present matter applicant is in jail for last almost three months.

17. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be 3 BAIL No. 26417 of 2025 innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

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-Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, 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. September 11, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad learned Senior counsel assisted by Mhd. Raghil Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 09 of 2025, under Sections 7 and 12 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Varanasi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was posted as booking clerk in the roadways and as per allegation complainant was driver and to allot him a particular bus, he made demand of bribe of Rs. Five thousand from him and thereafter he accepted the bribe through co-accused Rajnish and both were apprehended at spot but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submitted that being booking clerk applicant was not having any authority to allot particular bus to the complainant and authority of the same was vested with Senior Officer.

6. He further submitted that actually complainant wanted to drive a particular bus but when senior officers did not allot him his desired vehicle then he made request from the applicant but when applicant shows his inability then some dispute arose between applicant and complainant and thereafter applicant has been made accused in the present matter with the connivance of the trap team.

7. He further submitted that admittedly neither applicant received the bribe money nor bribe was recovered from his possession. 2 BAIL No. 26417 of 2025

8. He further submitted that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case and in that case applicant has been convicted and although this case relates to the section 302 IPC but said case was of the year 2001 and his appeal before this Court is pending and by the order of this Court, he is on bail during appeal.

9. He further submitted that investigation of the instant case has been completed and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 20.6.2025 i.e. for last almost three months.

10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was public servant and he made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter he also accepted the bribe through co-accused Rajnish but could not dispute the fact that applicant was booking clerk and he was not having authority to allot particular bus to the complainant who was driver.

11. He however, further submitted that applicant is a convicted person and he has been convicted for offence of murder but could not dispute the fact that said case was of the year 2001 and applicant was convicted in the year 2015 and in 2016 he has been released on bail by the this Court and his appeal before this Court is still pending. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail for last almost three months and investigation of the case has already been completed.

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

13. However, as per allegation applicant was booking clerk in the roadways and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 5000/- from complainant and thereafter he accepted the bribe through co-accused Rajnish but it reflects he was booking clerk and being booking clerk he was not having authorities to allot a particular bus to the complainant and the authority of the same was vested with the Senior Officer.

14. Further, it reflects, bribe money has not been accepted by the applicant himself and the same was received by co-accused.

15. Further, however apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of one another which relates to Section 302 IPC and in that he has been convicted but it reflects that said case was of 2001 and applicant has been convicted in that case in the year 2015 and his appeal is pending before this Court and in the year 2016 he has been released on bail and after released on bail except the present matter, no other complaint has been made against him.

16. Further, investigation of the preent case has already been completed and in the present matter applicant is in jail for last almost three months.

17. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be 3 BAIL No. 26417 of 2025 innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

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-Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, 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. September 11, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad