State of U.P v. Party

1. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail 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 Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended Act, 2018, Police Station Anti Corruption Meerut, District Meerut during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was posted as a Lekhpal and as per the allegations, mutation case of the brother of the complainant was pending before Tehsildar concerned and a report was called from the applicant and to submit report applicant made demand of bribe from the complainant, and thereafter, he was arrested red-handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant but the entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He further submits that complainant filed the complaint against applicant on 19.05.2025, but applicant had already submitted his report in the mutation case of the brother of the complainant on 08.04.2024, i.e., about a year before and this fact is evident from page 372 of the paper book. He further submits that even from the report of the Revenue Inspector, it also reflects that even complainant has admitted the fact that on 08.04.2024, applicant had already submitted the report. The report 2 BAIL No. 28472 of 2025 submitted by the Revenue Inspector is at page 377 of the paper book.

5. He further submits that even from the FIR, it reflects that after the alleged trap, applicant has been taken to the police station, and the recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared at the police station and it casts serious doubt on the trap proceedings.

6. He further submits that investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 22.05.2025, i.e., for last almost five months.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was a dishonest public servant and he not only made demand of bribe but he also accepted the bribe money and even the bribe money of Rs.1,00,000/- was recovered from his possession. However, he could not dispute the fact that, as per the complainant, the applicant was taking bribe to submit his report in the mutation case of the brother of the complainant, which was pending before the Tehsildar concerned but applicant way back in the year 2024 had already submitted the report in the said case.

8. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it reflects that after the alleged trap, the complainant and the applicant had been taken to the police station and the recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared at the police station.

9. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and the investigation of the case has already been completed, and in the present matter, the applicant is in jail for last almost five months.

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

11. As per the allegation, the applicant was Lekhpal and the mutation proceedings of the case of the brother of the complainant were pending before the Tehsildar and a report was called from applicant and to submit 3 BAIL No. 28472 of 2025 his report, he made demand of bribe and thereafter he was apprehended red-handed by the trap team and even the bribe money of Rs.1,00,000/- was recovered from his possession but it reflects that complainant made the complaint against the applicant on 19.05.2025 and from page 372 of the paper book, it reflects that in the mutation case of the brother of the complainant, the applicant had already submitted his report on 08.04.2024 , i.e., about a year before.

12. Further, even from page 377 of the paper book, it reflects that before the Revenue Inspector, the complainant himself admitted the fact that on

08.04.2024, applicant had already submitted his report, although according to him, he submitted a false report. Further, even from the FIR, it reflects that recovery memo of the alleged trap has not been prepared at the spot and the same was prepared at the police station.

13. Considering the above facts, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that the entire trap proceedings are doubtful, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

14. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail for almost five months and investigation of the case has already been concluded.

15. Further the law is settled unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail should not be rejected for punitive 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 - Sarit 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. 4 BAIL No. 28472 of 2025 (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. October 15, 2025 S.A. (Sameer Jain,J.) SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail 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 Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended Act, 2018, Police Station Anti Corruption Meerut, District Meerut during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was posted as a Lekhpal and as per the allegations, mutation case of the brother of the complainant was pending before Tehsildar concerned and a report was called from the applicant and to submit report applicant made demand of bribe from the complainant, and thereafter, he was arrested red-handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant but the entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He further submits that complainant filed the complaint against applicant on 19.05.2025, but applicant had already submitted his report in the mutation case of the brother of the complainant on 08.04.2024, i.e., about a year before and this fact is evident from page 372 of the paper book. He further submits that even from the report of the Revenue Inspector, it also reflects that even complainant has admitted the fact that on 08.04.2024, applicant had already submitted the report. The report 2 BAIL No. 28472 of 2025 submitted by the Revenue Inspector is at page 377 of the paper book.

5. He further submits that even from the FIR, it reflects that after the alleged trap, applicant has been taken to the police station, and the recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared at the police station and it casts serious doubt on the trap proceedings.

6. He further submits that investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 22.05.2025, i.e., for last almost five months.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was a dishonest public servant and he not only made demand of bribe but he also accepted the bribe money and even the bribe money of Rs.1,00,000/- was recovered from his possession. However, he could not dispute the fact that, as per the complainant, the applicant was taking bribe to submit his report in the mutation case of the brother of the complainant, which was pending before the Tehsildar concerned but applicant way back in the year 2024 had already submitted the report in the said case.

8. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it reflects that after the alleged trap, the complainant and the applicant had been taken to the police station and the recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared at the police station.

9. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and the investigation of the case has already been completed, and in the present matter, the applicant is in jail for last almost five months.

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

11. As per the allegation, the applicant was Lekhpal and the mutation proceedings of the case of the brother of the complainant were pending before the Tehsildar and a report was called from applicant and to submit 3 BAIL No. 28472 of 2025 his report, he made demand of bribe and thereafter he was apprehended red-handed by the trap team and even the bribe money of Rs.1,00,000/- was recovered from his possession but it reflects that complainant made the complaint against the applicant on 19.05.2025 and from page 372 of the paper book, it reflects that in the mutation case of the brother of the complainant, the applicant had already submitted his report on 08.04.2024 , i.e., about a year before.

12. Further, even from page 377 of the paper book, it reflects that before the Revenue Inspector, the complainant himself admitted the fact that on

08.04.2024, applicant had already submitted his report, although according to him, he submitted a false report. Further, even from the FIR, it reflects that recovery memo of the alleged trap has not been prepared at the spot and the same was prepared at the police station.

13. Considering the above facts, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that the entire trap proceedings are doubtful, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

14. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail for almost five months and investigation of the case has already been concluded.

15. Further the law is settled unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail should not be rejected for punitive 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 - Sarit 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. 4 BAIL No. 28472 of 2025 (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. October 15, 2025 S.A. (Sameer Jain,J.) SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad