Sarit Kumar v. State of U.P.)

2. Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned AAG assisted by Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned C.S.C. and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned G.A. for the State-respondent are present.

3. On 27.8.2025 following order was passed:- "1. Connect the instant application with Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28472 of 2025 (Sarit Kumar vs. State of U.P.).

2. Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State are present.

3. At the very outset, learned AGA submitted that unfortunately today he could not receive the record of the case from his office and, therefore, he is unable to assist the Court in the present matter, therefore, some other date may be fixed in the matter.

4. From the record, it reflects, earlier also on 20.08.2025, request had been made by learned AGA to pass over the case on the ground that he could not receive instructions in the matter. 5. It has become routine now a days, either learned AGA is not receiving instructions in time or his office is not sending record of the case and due to above reasons, bail applications are being frequently adjourned. 6. Considering above facts, learned Government Advocate was called by the Court. On call, he is present in the Court. When query was made from him, then he submits, due to shortage of staff, some times record of the case could not be sent. He next submits, even the issue has been communicated to the L.R. but till date it could not be solved. 2 BAIL No. 28388 of 2025

7. Considering the above facts, on 10.09.2025, learned L.R. (Legal Remembrancer,) of State of U.P. shall present in person before this Court.

8. Office shall provide copy of this order to learned G.A. within 48 hours for necessary compliance.

9. Put up this case again 'as fresh' on 10.09.2025 at 2:00 p.m. along with connected matter."

4. However vide order dated 27.8.2025, Legal Remembrancer (in short, L.R.) of the State of U.P. was directed to present in the Court today but today on his behalf an affidavit has been filed to exempt his presence. Considering that personal ground has taken in the affidavit, the presence of L.R. is hereby exempted for today.

5. On query, about the concern expressed by this Court in the order dated

27.08.2025, learned AAG submits, State is addressing the concern expressed by this Court about the shortage of the staff in the office of learned Government Advocate and steps for appointments of the additional staff have already been initiated. He next submits, however, considering the procedure, it will take at least six months and in the meantime there is proposal of the appointment of the additional staff on 'contractual basis' through outsourcing.

6. He further submitted that State ensures that in future, this Court will not face any inconvenience due to the alleged shortage of staff and record of the case will timely be provided to the learned Additional Government Advocate.

7. Considering the submission advanced by learned AAG, this Court is of the view that there is no need to pass any further order with regard to the difficulty faced by this Court in delivering the justice due to the shortage of the staff in the office of Government Advocate. This Court excepts that the required staff shall be appointed by the State Government as early as possible preferably within six months as assured by learned AAG and in the meantime, till their appointments, the required staff shall be appointed through outsourcing. Order on bail application

1. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3 BAIL No. 28388 of 2025

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 288 of 2025 converted Case Crime No. 13 of 2025, under Sections 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Modinagar Rural Commissionerate Ghaziabad transferred Police Station- Anti Corruption, Meerut, District-Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, in the present matter applicant has also been made accused along with co-accused Sarit Kumar, who was Lekhpal but applicant was admittedly not the government servant and he was a private person.

4. He further submitted that even from the FIR, it reflects, applicant neither made any demand of bribe form the complainant nor he received the bribe money from him and as per allegation, after receiving bribe money co- accused Sarit Kumar, the Lekhpal, handed over the same to the applicant.

5. He further submitted that even as per prosecution, applicant was privately employed by co-accused Sarit Kumar, therefore, if he accepted the money given by his master i.e. co-accused Sarit Kumar then it cannot be said that he also involved in instant crime along with him. He further submitted that prima facie no offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the applicant.

6. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 22.05.2025 i.e. for last more than three months.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that bribe money of Rs. one lakh was recovered from the possession of applicant but could not dispute the fact that applicant neither made any demand of bribe form the complainant nor he received the bribe money from him and he was the private person, who was employed by co-accused Sarit Kumar, the Lekhpal and as per allegation, after receiving bribe money co-accused Sarit Kumar handed over the same to the applicant and applicant did not directly receive the same from the complainant.

8. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter for last more than three months. 4 BAIL No. 28388 of 2025

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

10. However, from the record, it reflects, applicant was named in the FIR along with co-accused Sarit Kumar but it reflects, he was the private person and there is no allegation that he either made any demand of bribe from the complainant or he received the bribe money from him.

11. From the record, it reflects, as per allegation, demand of bribe was made by co-accused Sarit Kumar, who was public servant (Lekhpal) and he accepted the same from the complainant and thereafter he handed over the same to the applicant. Considering the fact that applicant is private person and he was employed by co-accused Sarit Kumar, the Lekhpal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that if co-accused Sarit Kumar, the master of the applicant, after receiving bribe money handed over the same to the applicant and being his servant, applicant accepted the same then also it cannot be said that applicant also involved in the present crime, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

12. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has already been concluded and he is in jail in the present matter for last more than three months.

13. 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.

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

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

16. Let the applicant-Kapil 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 5 BAIL No. 28388 of 2025 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 10, 2025 KK Patel (Sameer Jain,J.) KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned AAG assisted by Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned C.S.C. and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned G.A. for the State-respondent are present.

3. On 27.8.2025 following order was passed:- "1. Connect the instant application with Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28472 of 2025 (Sarit Kumar vs. State of U.P.).

2. Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State are present.

3. At the very outset, learned AGA submitted that unfortunately today he could not receive the record of the case from his office and, therefore, he is unable to assist the Court in the present matter, therefore, some other date may be fixed in the matter.

4. From the record, it reflects, earlier also on 20.08.2025, request had been made by learned AGA to pass over the case on the ground that he could not receive instructions in the matter. 5. It has become routine now a days, either learned AGA is not receiving instructions in time or his office is not sending record of the case and due to above reasons, bail applications are being frequently adjourned. 6. Considering above facts, learned Government Advocate was called by the Court. On call, he is present in the Court. When query was made from him, then he submits, due to shortage of staff, some times record of the case could not be sent. He next submits, even the issue has been communicated to the L.R. but till date it could not be solved. 2 BAIL No. 28388 of 2025

7. Considering the above facts, on 10.09.2025, learned L.R. (Legal Remembrancer,) of State of U.P. shall present in person before this Court.

8. Office shall provide copy of this order to learned G.A. within 48 hours for necessary compliance.

9. Put up this case again 'as fresh' on 10.09.2025 at 2:00 p.m. along with connected matter."

4. However vide order dated 27.8.2025, Legal Remembrancer (in short, L.R.) of the State of U.P. was directed to present in the Court today but today on his behalf an affidavit has been filed to exempt his presence. Considering that personal ground has taken in the affidavit, the presence of L.R. is hereby exempted for today.

5. On query, about the concern expressed by this Court in the order dated

27.08.2025, learned AAG submits, State is addressing the concern expressed by this Court about the shortage of the staff in the office of learned Government Advocate and steps for appointments of the additional staff have already been initiated. He next submits, however, considering the procedure, it will take at least six months and in the meantime there is proposal of the appointment of the additional staff on 'contractual basis' through outsourcing.

6. He further submitted that State ensures that in future, this Court will not face any inconvenience due to the alleged shortage of staff and record of the case will timely be provided to the learned Additional Government Advocate.

7. Considering the submission advanced by learned AAG, this Court is of the view that there is no need to pass any further order with regard to the difficulty faced by this Court in delivering the justice due to the shortage of the staff in the office of Government Advocate. This Court excepts that the required staff shall be appointed by the State Government as early as possible preferably within six months as assured by learned AAG and in the meantime, till their appointments, the required staff shall be appointed through outsourcing. Order on bail application

1. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3 BAIL No. 28388 of 2025

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 288 of 2025 converted Case Crime No. 13 of 2025, under Sections 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Modinagar Rural Commissionerate Ghaziabad transferred Police Station- Anti Corruption, Meerut, District-Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, in the present matter applicant has also been made accused along with co-accused Sarit Kumar, who was Lekhpal but applicant was admittedly not the government servant and he was a private person.

4. He further submitted that even from the FIR, it reflects, applicant neither made any demand of bribe form the complainant nor he received the bribe money from him and as per allegation, after receiving bribe money co- accused Sarit Kumar, the Lekhpal, handed over the same to the applicant.

5. He further submitted that even as per prosecution, applicant was privately employed by co-accused Sarit Kumar, therefore, if he accepted the money given by his master i.e. co-accused Sarit Kumar then it cannot be said that he also involved in instant crime along with him. He further submitted that prima facie no offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the applicant.

6. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 22.05.2025 i.e. for last more than three months.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that bribe money of Rs. one lakh was recovered from the possession of applicant but could not dispute the fact that applicant neither made any demand of bribe form the complainant nor he received the bribe money from him and he was the private person, who was employed by co-accused Sarit Kumar, the Lekhpal and as per allegation, after receiving bribe money co-accused Sarit Kumar handed over the same to the applicant and applicant did not directly receive the same from the complainant.

8. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter for last more than three months. 4 BAIL No. 28388 of 2025

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

10. However, from the record, it reflects, applicant was named in the FIR along with co-accused Sarit Kumar but it reflects, he was the private person and there is no allegation that he either made any demand of bribe from the complainant or he received the bribe money from him.

11. From the record, it reflects, as per allegation, demand of bribe was made by co-accused Sarit Kumar, who was public servant (Lekhpal) and he accepted the same from the complainant and thereafter he handed over the same to the applicant. Considering the fact that applicant is private person and he was employed by co-accused Sarit Kumar, the Lekhpal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that if co-accused Sarit Kumar, the master of the applicant, after receiving bribe money handed over the same to the applicant and being his servant, applicant accepted the same then also it cannot be said that applicant also involved in the present crime, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

12. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has already been concluded and he is in jail in the present matter for last more than three months.

13. 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.

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

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

16. Let the applicant-Kapil 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 5 BAIL No. 28388 of 2025 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 10, 2025 KK Patel (Sameer Jain,J.) KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad