State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2025, under Sections 7/12 P.C. Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Bareilly, District Unit A.C.O U.P. during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Lekhpal and as per allegation for giving possession to the complainant he made demand of bribe of Rs. 30,000/- from him and subsequently he agreed to receive bribe of Rs. 10,000/- before the work and after the work he agreed to receive bribe of Rs. 20,000/- and thereafter he was apprehended along with co-accused Vinod, the Mechanic while co-accused was receiving bribe on his instigation from the complainant but entire allegations leveled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submits, being Lekhpal applicant was not authorized to provide possession to the complainant, therefore, there was no occasion for him to give bribe to the applicant.

6. He further submits, even from the FIR it reflects, after the alleged trap firstly applicant and co-accused Vinod have taken at one Petrol Pump 2 BAIL No. 28080 of 2025 situating 100 meters away from the place where trap was made and at this place their hands were washed and thereafter they were taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo of trap has been prepared and these facts casts doubt on the entire trap proceedings.

7. He further submits, even from the record, it reflects, applicant himself did not receive bribe money and bribe was accepted/received by co-accused Vinod and therefore it cannot be said that applicant committed offence under Section 7 P.C. Act as for offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act the demand of bribe and its acceptance both are necessary.

8. He further submits, investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed for offence under Section 7 P.C. Act. He further submits, maximum punishment of seven years has been provided for offenc under Section 7 P.C. Act and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he 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 public servant and he not only made demand of bribe from the complainant but he also received bribe money through co-accused Vinod, therefore, it cannot be said that offence under Section 7 P.C. Act is not made out.

10. Learned AGA however could not dispute the fact that bribe money has not been received by the applicant and the same was received by co-accused Vinod though on his instigation/instruction.

11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects, hands of the applicant and co-accused Vinod were washed at nearby Petrol Pump which was 100 meters away from the place of trap. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that recovery memo of the trap has been prepared at police station.

12. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed for offence under Section 7 P.C. Act and applicant is in jail since 21.05.2025 i.e. for last four months.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 3 BAIL No. 28080 of 2025

14. Applicant was Lekhpal and as per allegation he made demand of bribe from the complainant to provide possession of land to him and thereafter he received bribe through co-accused Vinod and both applicant and co-accused were apprehended red handed by the trap team but from the recovery memo it reflects, after the trap applicant and co-accused Vinod have taken to the Petrol Pump which were situated 100 meters away from the place of trap and at this place their hands were washed. Further, it also reflects, thereafter they have taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo of alleged trap was prepared. Considering these facts, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that these facts casts serious doubt on the trap proceedings.

15. Further, investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge- sheet has been filed and apart from the present case applicant is not having any criminal history.

16. Further, it also reflects, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant for offence under Section 7 P.C. Act for which maximum punishment is seven years and applicant is in jail for last four months.

17. 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.

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 - Sanjeev 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. (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. 4 BAIL No. 28080 of 2025 (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 22, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2025, under Sections 7/12 P.C. Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Bareilly, District Unit A.C.O U.P. during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Lekhpal and as per allegation for giving possession to the complainant he made demand of bribe of Rs. 30,000/- from him and subsequently he agreed to receive bribe of Rs. 10,000/- before the work and after the work he agreed to receive bribe of Rs. 20,000/- and thereafter he was apprehended along with co-accused Vinod, the Mechanic while co-accused was receiving bribe on his instigation from the complainant but entire allegations leveled against the applicant are totally false.

5. He further submits, being Lekhpal applicant was not authorized to provide possession to the complainant, therefore, there was no occasion for him to give bribe to the applicant.

6. He further submits, even from the FIR it reflects, after the alleged trap firstly applicant and co-accused Vinod have taken at one Petrol Pump 2 BAIL No. 28080 of 2025 situating 100 meters away from the place where trap was made and at this place their hands were washed and thereafter they were taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo of trap has been prepared and these facts casts doubt on the entire trap proceedings.

7. He further submits, even from the record, it reflects, applicant himself did not receive bribe money and bribe was accepted/received by co-accused Vinod and therefore it cannot be said that applicant committed offence under Section 7 P.C. Act as for offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act the demand of bribe and its acceptance both are necessary.

8. He further submits, investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed for offence under Section 7 P.C. Act. He further submits, maximum punishment of seven years has been provided for offenc under Section 7 P.C. Act and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he 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 public servant and he not only made demand of bribe from the complainant but he also received bribe money through co-accused Vinod, therefore, it cannot be said that offence under Section 7 P.C. Act is not made out.

10. Learned AGA however could not dispute the fact that bribe money has not been received by the applicant and the same was received by co-accused Vinod though on his instigation/instruction.

11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects, hands of the applicant and co-accused Vinod were washed at nearby Petrol Pump which was 100 meters away from the place of trap. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that recovery memo of the trap has been prepared at police station.

12. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed for offence under Section 7 P.C. Act and applicant is in jail since 21.05.2025 i.e. for last four months.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 3 BAIL No. 28080 of 2025

14. Applicant was Lekhpal and as per allegation he made demand of bribe from the complainant to provide possession of land to him and thereafter he received bribe through co-accused Vinod and both applicant and co-accused were apprehended red handed by the trap team but from the recovery memo it reflects, after the trap applicant and co-accused Vinod have taken to the Petrol Pump which were situated 100 meters away from the place of trap and at this place their hands were washed. Further, it also reflects, thereafter they have taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo of alleged trap was prepared. Considering these facts, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that these facts casts serious doubt on the trap proceedings.

15. Further, investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge- sheet has been filed and apart from the present case applicant is not having any criminal history.

16. Further, it also reflects, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant for offence under Section 7 P.C. Act for which maximum punishment is seven years and applicant is in jail for last four months.

17. 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.

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 - Sanjeev 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. (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. 4 BAIL No. 28080 of 2025 (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 22, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad