High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Swapnil Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, 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. 08 of 2025, under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Varanasi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was clerk in the office of municipal commissioner, Varanasi and as per allegation complainant got a contract to lay the fiber line and for permission of the same applicant made demand of bribe of Rs. Five thousand from him and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team on 17.6.2025 but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He further submitted that even from the FIR it reflects when applicant was apprehended then from his possession permission letter dated 16.6.2025 was recovered which clearly suggests that actually executive engineer concerned had already granted the permission to the complainant and therefore, there was no occasion for the complainant to give bribe to the applicant.

5. He further submitted that even being clerk applicant was not having authority to give permission to the complainant for laying the fiber line and the authority of the same was vested with executive engineer.

6. He further submitted that from the FIR it also reflects that recovery memo and other documents related to trap have not been prepared at spot and they were prepared at police station and this casts serious doubt on the trap proceedings.

7. He further submitted that however, applicant is having criminal history of one another case relates to section 135 Electricity Act but in that case applicant has already been discharged on the payment of fine.

8. He further submitted that investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is in jail in the present matter since 17.6.2025 i.e. for last two months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was public servant and he not only made demand of bribe but was also apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 5000/- from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that applicant was making demand of bribe to provide permission to the complainant for the purpose of laying the fiber line but executive engineer concerned had already granted permission on 16.6.2025 i.e. a day before the trap proceeding.

10. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant was clerk in the office of Municipal Commissioner and was not having any authority to give alleged permission to the complainant and authority of the same was vested with the executive engineer.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it reflects that the recovery memo and other documents related to trap have not been prepared at spot and they were prepared at police station concerned.

12. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that however, apart from the present case applicant was having criminal history of one another case but that case related to Electricity Act and in that case applicant has already been discharged.

13. He further could not dispute that in the present matter applicant is in jail for last two months and investigation has been completed.

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

15. However, as per allegation applicant was posted as clerk in the office to municipal commissioner, Varanasi and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- for the complainant to give permission to him for laying fiber line and thereafter he was arrested red handed by trap team on 17.6.2025 but it reflects that a day before i.e. 16.6.2025 executive engineer had already granted permission to the complainant.

16. Further, being clerk in the office of municipal commissioner applicant was not having authority to give alleged permission to the complainant and it appears, the authority was vested with the executive engineer.

17. Further, from the FIR of the present case it also reflects that recovery memo and other documents of the trap have not been prepared at spot and they were prepared at police station. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact casts serious doubt upon the trap proceeding cannot be ruled out at this stage.

18. Further, applicant is however, having criminal history of one another case but it appears that case relates to section135 Electricity Act and in that case applicant has already been discharged.

19. Further, record also suggests that investigation of the case has already been completed and applicant is in jail since 17.6.2025 i.e. for last two months.

20. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes.

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

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

23. Let the applicant-Ram Vilas 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.

24. 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.

25. 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. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Swapnil Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, 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. 08 of 2025, under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Varanasi, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was clerk in the office of municipal commissioner, Varanasi and as per allegation complainant got a contract to lay the fiber line and for permission of the same applicant made demand of bribe of Rs. Five thousand from him and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team on 17.6.2025 but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He further submitted that even from the FIR it reflects when applicant was apprehended then from his possession permission letter dated 16.6.2025 was recovered which clearly suggests that actually executive engineer concerned had already granted the permission to the complainant and therefore, there was no occasion for the complainant to give bribe to the applicant.

5. He further submitted that even being clerk applicant was not having authority to give permission to the complainant for laying the fiber line and the authority of the same was vested with executive engineer.

6. He further submitted that from the FIR it also reflects that recovery memo and other documents related to trap have not been prepared at spot and they were prepared at police station and this casts serious doubt on the trap proceedings.

7. He further submitted that however, applicant is having criminal history of one another case relates to section 135 Electricity Act but in that case applicant has already been discharged on the payment of fine.

8. He further submitted that investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is in jail in the present matter since 17.6.2025 i.e. for last two months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was public servant and he not only made demand of bribe but was also apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 5000/- from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that applicant was making demand of bribe to provide permission to the complainant for the purpose of laying the fiber line but executive engineer concerned had already granted permission on 16.6.2025 i.e. a day before the trap proceeding.

10. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant was clerk in the office of Municipal Commissioner and was not having any authority to give alleged permission to the complainant and authority of the same was vested with the executive engineer.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it reflects that the recovery memo and other documents related to trap have not been prepared at spot and they were prepared at police station concerned.

12. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that however, apart from the present case applicant was having criminal history of one another case but that case related to Electricity Act and in that case applicant has already been discharged.

13. He further could not dispute that in the present matter applicant is in jail for last two months and investigation has been completed.

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

15. However, as per allegation applicant was posted as clerk in the office to municipal commissioner, Varanasi and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- for the complainant to give permission to him for laying fiber line and thereafter he was arrested red handed by trap team on 17.6.2025 but it reflects that a day before i.e. 16.6.2025 executive engineer had already granted permission to the complainant.

16. Further, being clerk in the office of municipal commissioner applicant was not having authority to give alleged permission to the complainant and it appears, the authority was vested with the executive engineer.

17. Further, from the FIR of the present case it also reflects that recovery memo and other documents of the trap have not been prepared at spot and they were prepared at police station. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact casts serious doubt upon the trap proceeding cannot be ruled out at this stage.

18. Further, applicant is however, having criminal history of one another case but it appears that case relates to section135 Electricity Act and in that case applicant has already been discharged.

19. Further, record also suggests that investigation of the case has already been completed and applicant is in jail since 17.6.2025 i.e. for last two months.

20. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes.

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

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

23. Let the applicant-Ram Vilas 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.

24. 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.

25. 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. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Ankita ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad