State of U.P v. Party

1. Heard Sri N. I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Asif Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0001 of 2024, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that as per allegation, applicant was Sub-inspector in police and he was Investigating Officer of a criminal case, in which there was allegation against the complainant and to exonerate her, applicant made demand of bribe from her and thereafter, he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs.50,000/- from her but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He next submits that as per the FIR, applicant was apprehended from his rented house and after the alleged trap, he has taken to police station Vigilance, Bareilly and it appears, recovery memo of the trap proceeding has not been prepared at the spot where the trap was made and the same was prepared at police station Vigilance, Bareilly and this fact, casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.

5. He further submits that applicant is responsible police officer and till the 2 BAIL No. 29538 of 2024 date of the alleged trap, his service record was unblemished.

6. He further submits that punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and applicant is in jail in the present matter since 11th June, 2024 i.e. for last more than a year and till date out of 18 witnesses of the charge-sheet, only one could be examined.

7. He further submits that therefore considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

8. Per contra; learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is the police Sub-inspector and he was Investigating Officer of the case, in which there was accusation against the complainant and one Umesh Kumar and applicant made demand of bribe to exonerate them and thereafter, he was apprehended red handed by the trap team and at this stage, trap proceedings cannot be doubted but could not dispute the fact that punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than a year and till date out of 18 witnesses of the charge-sheet, only one could be examined.

9. He further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it reflects, applicant was apprehended from his rented house and recovery memo of the alleged trap was not prepared at the spot where trap was made and the same was prepared at police station Vigilance, Bareilly.

10. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit.

11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case .

12. However, as per allegation, applicant was Sub-inspector of police and he was Investigating Officer of a criminal case, in which there was accusation against the complainant and one Umesh Kumar and to exonerate them, he made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter, he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs.50,000/- from her but it reflects, applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and he is in jail in the present matter since 11th June, 2024 i.e. for last more than a year. 3 BAIL No. 29538 of 2024

13. Further, in the charge-sheet, it appears, there are as many as 18 witnesses but till date only one could be examined, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial and there is no evidence, which can suggest that applicant is causing delay in the trial.

14. Further, from the FIR, it reflects, applicant allegedly was apprehended from his rented house and thereafter he was taken to the police station Vigilance, Bareilly and at police station Vigilance, Bareilly recovery memory of the alleged trap was prepared. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the entire trap proceedings, cannot be ruled out at this stage .

15. Further, applicant is having no criminal history till the lodgement of the FIR of the present matter and it appears, his service record was unblemished.

16. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should not be dismissed either for preventive or for punitive purpose.

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

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

19. Let the applicant- Ramavtar Singh (Sub-Inspector ), 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.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be 4 BAIL No. 29538 of 2024 at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. 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 4, 2025 Zafar (Sameer Jain,J.) MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri N. I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Asif Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0001 of 2024, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that as per allegation, applicant was Sub-inspector in police and he was Investigating Officer of a criminal case, in which there was allegation against the complainant and to exonerate her, applicant made demand of bribe from her and thereafter, he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs.50,000/- from her but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He next submits that as per the FIR, applicant was apprehended from his rented house and after the alleged trap, he has taken to police station Vigilance, Bareilly and it appears, recovery memo of the trap proceeding has not been prepared at the spot where the trap was made and the same was prepared at police station Vigilance, Bareilly and this fact, casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.

5. He further submits that applicant is responsible police officer and till the 2 BAIL No. 29538 of 2024 date of the alleged trap, his service record was unblemished.

6. He further submits that punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and applicant is in jail in the present matter since 11th June, 2024 i.e. for last more than a year and till date out of 18 witnesses of the charge-sheet, only one could be examined.

7. He further submits that therefore considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

8. Per contra; learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is the police Sub-inspector and he was Investigating Officer of the case, in which there was accusation against the complainant and one Umesh Kumar and applicant made demand of bribe to exonerate them and thereafter, he was apprehended red handed by the trap team and at this stage, trap proceedings cannot be doubted but could not dispute the fact that punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than a year and till date out of 18 witnesses of the charge-sheet, only one could be examined.

9. He further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it reflects, applicant was apprehended from his rented house and recovery memo of the alleged trap was not prepared at the spot where trap was made and the same was prepared at police station Vigilance, Bareilly.

10. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit.

11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case .

12. However, as per allegation, applicant was Sub-inspector of police and he was Investigating Officer of a criminal case, in which there was accusation against the complainant and one Umesh Kumar and to exonerate them, he made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter, he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs.50,000/- from her but it reflects, applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and he is in jail in the present matter since 11th June, 2024 i.e. for last more than a year. 3 BAIL No. 29538 of 2024

13. Further, in the charge-sheet, it appears, there are as many as 18 witnesses but till date only one could be examined, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial and there is no evidence, which can suggest that applicant is causing delay in the trial.

14. Further, from the FIR, it reflects, applicant allegedly was apprehended from his rented house and thereafter he was taken to the police station Vigilance, Bareilly and at police station Vigilance, Bareilly recovery memory of the alleged trap was prepared. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the entire trap proceedings, cannot be ruled out at this stage .

15. Further, applicant is having no criminal history till the lodgement of the FIR of the present matter and it appears, his service record was unblemished.

16. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should not be dismissed either for preventive or for punitive purpose.

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

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

19. Let the applicant- Ramavtar Singh (Sub-Inspector ), 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.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be 4 BAIL No. 29538 of 2024 at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. 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 4, 2025 Zafar (Sameer Jain,J.) MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad