State of U.P v. Counsel for

2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aalok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 8 of 2025, under Sections 7 P.C. Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Saharanpur, District ACO Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant submits, applicant is Excise Inspector and a complaint was moved by the complainant against him with the allegation that the license of Beer shop allotted to his brother for the year 2024-25 could not be renewed for the year 2025-26 and as Rs. 45,000/- were deposited as security, therefore, on 07.04.2025 brother of complainant moved an application to get back the security amount but no action has been taken on his application and thereafter when complainant met with applicant with regard to security money of Rs. 45,000/- then he started making demand of Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter applicant was allegedly apprehended by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 25,000/- but entire allegations leveled against him are totally false.

5. He further submits, from Annexure-8 to the affidavit it reflects, F.D. (fix deposit) account has been opened from security amount of Rs. 45,000/- in the name of brother of complainant and District Excise Officer which was going to mature on 28.10.2025 and therefore, applicant was not having any authority to return the security amount of Rs. 45,000/- either to the complainant or his brother and therefore prima facie allegation of demand of bribe leveled against applicant appears to be false.

6. He further submits, actually applicant has been falsely made accused in the present 2 BAIL No. 27674 of 2025 matter as on 27.04.2024 he seized the expired Beers from the establishment of the brother of the complainant and thereafter by the order of District Magistrate concerned the alleged recovered expired Beers were destroyed in January, 2025 and all these facts are evident from Annexure-5 to the affidavit. He next submits, after several months from the date of the order passed by District Magistrate concerned, the complainant made false complaint against applicant that he is asking bribe from him.

7. He next submits, even from the FIR it reflects, after the alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station and at police station his hands were washed and recovery memo was prepared.

8. He further submits, all the above facts clearly suggests that on the basis of false allegation applicant has been made accused in the present matter with the connivance of trap team and even trap proceedings is false and baseless.

9. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and till the lodgment of the FIR of the present case his service record was unblemished.

10. He further submits, after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted and applicant is in jail since 03.07.2025 i.e. for last more than two months.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant is public servant and he was Excise Inspector and he not only made demand of bribe from the complainant but he was also apprehended red handed by the trap team but could not dispute the fact that as per complainant, applicant made demand of bribe to release the security amount of his brother but from Annexure-8 it reflects, against the security amount F.D. has been opened in the name of brother of complainant and District Excise Inspector, which was going to mature on 28.10.2025.

12. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that however complainant moved the complainant against applicant on 24.06.2025 but earlier on 21.04.2024 applicant seized the expired Beers from the brother of complainant, which has been destroyed by the order passed by the District Magistrate concerned dated 21.01.2025.

13. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that neither the hands of applicant were washed at spot where trap was made nor recovery memo was prepared at spot.

14. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed and he is in jail since 03.07.2025 i.e. for last more than two months.

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

16. However, applicant is public servant and as per allegation he was Excise Inspector and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team but it reflects, as per allegation, 3 BAIL No. 27674 of 2025 applicant made demand of bribe to release the security amount of Rs. 45,000/- of the brother of the complainant but from Annexure-8 of the affidavit filed in support of instant bail application, it reflects, against the alleged security amount a F.D. has been opened in the name of brother of complainant and District Excise Officer. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that there was no occasion for applicant to make demand of bribe, cannot be ruled out.

17. Further, from Annexure-5 to the affidavit, it reflects, in the month of April, 2024 applicant seized the Beers from the brother of the complainant and thereafter in the month of January, 2025 the same was destroyed after the order passed by the District Magistrate concerned. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that as complainant was having animosity with the applicant, therefore, he implicated him in the present matter with the connivance of Trap Team cannot be ruled out.

18. Further, from the FIR it reflects, neither hands of the applicant were washed at spot nor recovery memo of the trap was prepared at spot and his hands were washed at police station and recovery memo of the trap proceeding was also prepared at police station. Considering this fact, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the trap proceeding.

19. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and his service record till FIR of the present case appears to be unblemished.

20. Further, investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 03.07.2025 i.e. for last more than two months.

21. 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.

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

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

24. Let the applicant - Shailendra Kumar 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. 4 BAIL No. 27674 of 2025 (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.

25. 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.

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

2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aalok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 8 of 2025, under Sections 7 P.C. Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Saharanpur, District ACO Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant submits, applicant is Excise Inspector and a complaint was moved by the complainant against him with the allegation that the license of Beer shop allotted to his brother for the year 2024-25 could not be renewed for the year 2025-26 and as Rs. 45,000/- were deposited as security, therefore, on 07.04.2025 brother of complainant moved an application to get back the security amount but no action has been taken on his application and thereafter when complainant met with applicant with regard to security money of Rs. 45,000/- then he started making demand of Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter applicant was allegedly apprehended by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 25,000/- but entire allegations leveled against him are totally false.

5. He further submits, from Annexure-8 to the affidavit it reflects, F.D. (fix deposit) account has been opened from security amount of Rs. 45,000/- in the name of brother of complainant and District Excise Officer which was going to mature on 28.10.2025 and therefore, applicant was not having any authority to return the security amount of Rs. 45,000/- either to the complainant or his brother and therefore prima facie allegation of demand of bribe leveled against applicant appears to be false.

6. He further submits, actually applicant has been falsely made accused in the present 2 BAIL No. 27674 of 2025 matter as on 27.04.2024 he seized the expired Beers from the establishment of the brother of the complainant and thereafter by the order of District Magistrate concerned the alleged recovered expired Beers were destroyed in January, 2025 and all these facts are evident from Annexure-5 to the affidavit. He next submits, after several months from the date of the order passed by District Magistrate concerned, the complainant made false complaint against applicant that he is asking bribe from him.

7. He next submits, even from the FIR it reflects, after the alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station and at police station his hands were washed and recovery memo was prepared.

8. He further submits, all the above facts clearly suggests that on the basis of false allegation applicant has been made accused in the present matter with the connivance of trap team and even trap proceedings is false and baseless.

9. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and till the lodgment of the FIR of the present case his service record was unblemished.

10. He further submits, after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted and applicant is in jail since 03.07.2025 i.e. for last more than two months.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant is public servant and he was Excise Inspector and he not only made demand of bribe from the complainant but he was also apprehended red handed by the trap team but could not dispute the fact that as per complainant, applicant made demand of bribe to release the security amount of his brother but from Annexure-8 it reflects, against the security amount F.D. has been opened in the name of brother of complainant and District Excise Inspector, which was going to mature on 28.10.2025.

12. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that however complainant moved the complainant against applicant on 24.06.2025 but earlier on 21.04.2024 applicant seized the expired Beers from the brother of complainant, which has been destroyed by the order passed by the District Magistrate concerned dated 21.01.2025.

13. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that neither the hands of applicant were washed at spot where trap was made nor recovery memo was prepared at spot.

14. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed and he is in jail since 03.07.2025 i.e. for last more than two months.

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

16. However, applicant is public servant and as per allegation he was Excise Inspector and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team but it reflects, as per allegation, 3 BAIL No. 27674 of 2025 applicant made demand of bribe to release the security amount of Rs. 45,000/- of the brother of the complainant but from Annexure-8 of the affidavit filed in support of instant bail application, it reflects, against the alleged security amount a F.D. has been opened in the name of brother of complainant and District Excise Officer. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that there was no occasion for applicant to make demand of bribe, cannot be ruled out.

17. Further, from Annexure-5 to the affidavit, it reflects, in the month of April, 2024 applicant seized the Beers from the brother of the complainant and thereafter in the month of January, 2025 the same was destroyed after the order passed by the District Magistrate concerned. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that as complainant was having animosity with the applicant, therefore, he implicated him in the present matter with the connivance of Trap Team cannot be ruled out.

18. Further, from the FIR it reflects, neither hands of the applicant were washed at spot nor recovery memo of the trap was prepared at spot and his hands were washed at police station and recovery memo of the trap proceeding was also prepared at police station. Considering this fact, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the trap proceeding.

19. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and his service record till FIR of the present case appears to be unblemished.

20. Further, investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 03.07.2025 i.e. for last more than two months.

21. 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.

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

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

24. Let the applicant - Shailendra Kumar 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. 4 BAIL No. 27674 of 2025 (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.

25. 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.

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