State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dheeraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 138 of 2025 converted with Case Crime No. 11 of 2025 under Sections 7 Prevention of Corruption Act-1988, amended Act- 2018, Police Station- Hapur Dehat, District- Hapur/A.C.O. Meerut during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that applicant was contractual employee and, however, as per allegation, on the behest of co-accused Deependra Sharma, the Clerk, he made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap-team along with co-accused while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 70,000/- from the complainant but considering the fact that applicant is contractual employee, prima facie, allegations levelled against him appears to be false. He further submitted that being contractual employee, applicant was not having any authority to do the work of the complainant, who was Principal in a school.

5. He further submitted that from the FIR, it reflects, after the alleged trap, applicant along with co-accused Deependra Sharma has been taken to the police station and at the police station recovery memo and other documents related to trap have been prepared and this fact casts serious doubt on the 2 BAIL No. 27500 of 2025 entire trap proceedings.

6. He further submitted that investigation of the case has been concluded and charge sheet has been filed.

7. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 29.04.2025 i.e. for last four months.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant along with co-accused Deependra Sharma made demand of bribe and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap-team along with co-accused and bribe money of Rs. 70,000/- was also recovered from his possession but could not dispute the fact that applicant was contractual employee and he was not having any authority to do the work of the complainant.

9. He further could not dispute the fact that recovery memo and other documents have not been prepared at spot where trap was made rather the same were prepared at police station. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. He also could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter for last four months.

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

11. However, as per allegation, applicant along with co-accused Deependra Sharma made demand of bribe of Rs. 70,000/- from the complainant for his work and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team along with co-accused while they were receiving bribe from the complainant but it reflects, applicant was contractual employee and principal accused in the present matter appears to be co-accused Deependra Sharma, the Clerk.

12. Further, considering the fact that applicant was contractual employee, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was not having any authority to do work of the complainant, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

13. Record also suggests that after the alleged trap, applicant has been taken to the police station along with co-accused Deependra Sharma and at the police station recovery memo and other documents related to trap were prepared. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that entire trap proceedings became doubtful, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 3 BAIL No. 27500 of 2025

14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has been concluded and charge sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than four months.

15. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused 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-Nikhil Sharma 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.

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 9, 2025 KK Patel (Sameer Jain,J.) KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dheeraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 138 of 2025 converted with Case Crime No. 11 of 2025 under Sections 7 Prevention of Corruption Act-1988, amended Act- 2018, Police Station- Hapur Dehat, District- Hapur/A.C.O. Meerut during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that applicant was contractual employee and, however, as per allegation, on the behest of co-accused Deependra Sharma, the Clerk, he made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap-team along with co-accused while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 70,000/- from the complainant but considering the fact that applicant is contractual employee, prima facie, allegations levelled against him appears to be false. He further submitted that being contractual employee, applicant was not having any authority to do the work of the complainant, who was Principal in a school.

5. He further submitted that from the FIR, it reflects, after the alleged trap, applicant along with co-accused Deependra Sharma has been taken to the police station and at the police station recovery memo and other documents related to trap have been prepared and this fact casts serious doubt on the 2 BAIL No. 27500 of 2025 entire trap proceedings.

6. He further submitted that investigation of the case has been concluded and charge sheet has been filed.

7. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 29.04.2025 i.e. for last four months.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant along with co-accused Deependra Sharma made demand of bribe and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap-team along with co-accused and bribe money of Rs. 70,000/- was also recovered from his possession but could not dispute the fact that applicant was contractual employee and he was not having any authority to do the work of the complainant.

9. He further could not dispute the fact that recovery memo and other documents have not been prepared at spot where trap was made rather the same were prepared at police station. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. He also could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter for last four months.

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

11. However, as per allegation, applicant along with co-accused Deependra Sharma made demand of bribe of Rs. 70,000/- from the complainant for his work and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team along with co-accused while they were receiving bribe from the complainant but it reflects, applicant was contractual employee and principal accused in the present matter appears to be co-accused Deependra Sharma, the Clerk.

12. Further, considering the fact that applicant was contractual employee, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was not having any authority to do work of the complainant, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

13. Record also suggests that after the alleged trap, applicant has been taken to the police station along with co-accused Deependra Sharma and at the police station recovery memo and other documents related to trap were prepared. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that entire trap proceedings became doubtful, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 3 BAIL No. 27500 of 2025

14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has been concluded and charge sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than four months.

15. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused 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-Nikhil Sharma 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.

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 9, 2025 KK Patel (Sameer Jain,J.) KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad