State of U.P v. Party

: Amit Kumar Srivastava, Love Lesh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kumar Verma Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed by State is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2025, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Anticorruption Organization Unit Moradabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Clerk in Electricity Department and as per allegation, complainant moved an application for electricity connection of tube well and applicant for that purpose made demand of bribe from him and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.

5. He further submitted that actually there was defect in the application moved by the complainant and therefore on 13.06.2025 Executive Engineer issued notice to him that along with his application affidavits of all the co- sharers and I.D. of complainant has not been annexed and the same should be annexed but in stead of choosing to comply the notice dated 13.06.2025, complainant tried to illegally get electricity connection and when applicant refused to help him then he implicated him in the present matter with the connivance of trap team.

6. He further submitted that even being petty Clerk, applicant was not authorized to issue electric connection to the complainant and this authority was vested with the Executive Engineer, therefore, there was no occasion 2 BAIL No. 31290 of 2025 either for the applicant to made demand of bribe or for the complainant to give bribe money to him.

7. He further submitted that from the FIR, it reflects, after the alleged trap applicant has been taken to police station and at police station recovery memo was prepared and this fact casts serious doubt on the entire trap proceeding.

8. He further submitted that investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 08.07.2025 i.e. for last more than two and half months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was dishonest public servant and he not only made demand of bribe from the complainant but he was also apprehended red handed but could not dispute the fact that even before the trap notice was issued to the complainant by the Executive Engineer that there is defect in his application.

10. He further could not dispute the fact that being Clerk applicant was not authorized to issue electricity connection to the complainant. He further could not dispute the fact that after the alleged trap applicant has been taken to police station and at police station recovery memo was prepared.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail for last more than two and half months.

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

13. Applicant was Clerk in the Electricity Department and as per allegation, applicant to issue connection of tube well to the complainant, made demand of bribe from him and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team but considering the fact that on 13.06.2025 a notice was issued to the complainant by Executive Engineer as there was defect in his application coupled with the fact that being petty Clerk, applicant was not authorized to issue connection to the complainant, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to false implication of the applicant, cannot be ruled out.

14. Further, even from the FIR it reflects, after the alleged trap applicant and complainant have been taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo was prepared. Considering this fact, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the 3 BAIL No. 31290 of 2025 entire trap proceeding, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

15. Further, investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail for last two and half months.

16. 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.

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- Brijesh 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. (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 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 26, 2025 KK Patel (Sameer Jain,J.) KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Amit Kumar Srivastava, Love Lesh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kumar Verma Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed by State is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2025, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Anticorruption Organization Unit Moradabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Clerk in Electricity Department and as per allegation, complainant moved an application for electricity connection of tube well and applicant for that purpose made demand of bribe from him and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.

5. He further submitted that actually there was defect in the application moved by the complainant and therefore on 13.06.2025 Executive Engineer issued notice to him that along with his application affidavits of all the co- sharers and I.D. of complainant has not been annexed and the same should be annexed but in stead of choosing to comply the notice dated 13.06.2025, complainant tried to illegally get electricity connection and when applicant refused to help him then he implicated him in the present matter with the connivance of trap team.

6. He further submitted that even being petty Clerk, applicant was not authorized to issue electric connection to the complainant and this authority was vested with the Executive Engineer, therefore, there was no occasion 2 BAIL No. 31290 of 2025 either for the applicant to made demand of bribe or for the complainant to give bribe money to him.

7. He further submitted that from the FIR, it reflects, after the alleged trap applicant has been taken to police station and at police station recovery memo was prepared and this fact casts serious doubt on the entire trap proceeding.

8. He further submitted that investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 08.07.2025 i.e. for last more than two and half months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was dishonest public servant and he not only made demand of bribe from the complainant but he was also apprehended red handed but could not dispute the fact that even before the trap notice was issued to the complainant by the Executive Engineer that there is defect in his application.

10. He further could not dispute the fact that being Clerk applicant was not authorized to issue electricity connection to the complainant. He further could not dispute the fact that after the alleged trap applicant has been taken to police station and at police station recovery memo was prepared.

11. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail for last more than two and half months.

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

13. Applicant was Clerk in the Electricity Department and as per allegation, applicant to issue connection of tube well to the complainant, made demand of bribe from him and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team but considering the fact that on 13.06.2025 a notice was issued to the complainant by Executive Engineer as there was defect in his application coupled with the fact that being petty Clerk, applicant was not authorized to issue connection to the complainant, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to false implication of the applicant, cannot be ruled out.

14. Further, even from the FIR it reflects, after the alleged trap applicant and complainant have been taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo was prepared. Considering this fact, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the 3 BAIL No. 31290 of 2025 entire trap proceeding, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

15. Further, investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail for last two and half months.

16. 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.

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- Brijesh 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. (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 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 26, 2025 KK Patel (Sameer Jain,J.) KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad