High Court · 2025

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was public servant and she was posted as Sub Inspector in the police department and as per allegation, daughter of the complainant lodged an FIR against her husband and his family members and applicant was Investigating Officer and when complainant made contact with the applicant with regard to investigation of the case lodged by her daughter then she started making demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/- from her and thereafter she was arrested red handed by the trap team while she was receiving bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant but entire allegations made against applicant are totally false.

4. He further submits that actually complainant was pressurizing the applicant to take favour of her daughter and when applicant refused to do so then she implicated her in the present matter with the connivance of trap team.

5. He further submits that even from the FIR, it reflects that the alleged trap was made at police station Mahila Thana but recovery memo and other documents have not been prepared there and same were prepared at police station Cantt, Varanasi and this fact casts serious doubt on the entire trap proceedings.

6. He further submits that however, earlier this Court directed the trial court to record the statement of the complainant but from the report of the trial court, which is on record, it reflects, as court is vacant, therefore, proceedings of the trial could not be proceed any further.

7. He further submits that applicant is a lady and she is having no criminal history to her credit and she is in jail in the present matter since 01.08.2024 i.e. for last one year.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was Sub Inspector in police department and she misused her position and made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter she was apprehended red handed by the trap team while she was receiving bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it reflects, recovery memo and other documents have not been prepared at the place where trap was allegedly made but the same were prepared at different police station.

9. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is a lady and she is having no criminal history to her credit and she is in jail in the present matter since 01.08.2024 i.e. for last one year and trial court is vacant and therefore, trial of the case could not be proceeded any further.

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

11. However, as per allegation, applicant was posted as Sub Inspector in the police department and she was conducting the investigation of a criminal case lodged by daughter of the complainant against her husband and his family members and she made a demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/- from her to take favour of her daughter and thereafter she was apprehended red handed by the trap team while she was receiving bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant but it reflects, alleged trap was conducted at police station Mahila Thana but after the trap, applicant was taken to police station Cantt, Varanasi, where recovery memo and other documents were prepared. Considering this fact, the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant in this regard, cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

12. Further, as per the report submitted by In-charge District and Sessions Judge, it reflects, court is vacant and therefore, trial of the case could not proceed any further.

13. Further, applicant is a lady and she is having no criminal history to her credit and she is in jail in the present matter since

01.08.2024 i.e. for last one year.

14. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should be dismissed for punitive purpose.

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

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

17. Let the applicant- Anobha Tiwari 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 her 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.

18. 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.

19. 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 :- 4.8.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was public servant and she was posted as Sub Inspector in the police department and as per allegation, daughter of the complainant lodged an FIR against her husband and his family members and applicant was Investigating Officer and when complainant made contact with the applicant with regard to investigation of the case lodged by her daughter then she started making demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/- from her and thereafter she was arrested red handed by the trap team while she was receiving bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant but entire allegations made against applicant are totally false.

4. He further submits that actually complainant was pressurizing the applicant to take favour of her daughter and when applicant refused to do so then she implicated her in the present matter with the connivance of trap team.

5. He further submits that even from the FIR, it reflects that the alleged trap was made at police station Mahila Thana but recovery memo and other documents have not been prepared there and same were prepared at police station Cantt, Varanasi and this fact casts serious doubt on the entire trap proceedings.

6. He further submits that however, earlier this Court directed the trial court to record the statement of the complainant but from the report of the trial court, which is on record, it reflects, as court is vacant, therefore, proceedings of the trial could not be proceed any further.

7. He further submits that applicant is a lady and she is having no criminal history to her credit and she is in jail in the present matter since 01.08.2024 i.e. for last one year.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was Sub Inspector in police department and she misused her position and made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter she was apprehended red handed by the trap team while she was receiving bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it reflects, recovery memo and other documents have not been prepared at the place where trap was allegedly made but the same were prepared at different police station.

9. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is a lady and she is having no criminal history to her credit and she is in jail in the present matter since 01.08.2024 i.e. for last one year and trial court is vacant and therefore, trial of the case could not be proceeded any further.

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

11. However, as per allegation, applicant was posted as Sub Inspector in the police department and she was conducting the investigation of a criminal case lodged by daughter of the complainant against her husband and his family members and she made a demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/- from her to take favour of her daughter and thereafter she was apprehended red handed by the trap team while she was receiving bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant but it reflects, alleged trap was conducted at police station Mahila Thana but after the trap, applicant was taken to police station Cantt, Varanasi, where recovery memo and other documents were prepared. Considering this fact, the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant in this regard, cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

12. Further, as per the report submitted by In-charge District and Sessions Judge, it reflects, court is vacant and therefore, trial of the case could not proceed any further.

13. Further, applicant is a lady and she is having no criminal history to her credit and she is in jail in the present matter since

01.08.2024 i.e. for last one year.

14. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should be dismissed for punitive purpose.

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

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

17. Let the applicant- Anobha Tiwari 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 her 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.

18. 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.

19. 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 :- 4.8.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad