State of U.P v. Party

2. Sri R.K. Bais, learned Advocate, submits that he has filed his Power on behalf of the applicant day before yesterday in the office of this Court, but his name has not been shown in the cause list.

3. Heard Sri R.K. Bais, learned counsel for the applicant, and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.05 of 2025, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Basti, District Basti during pendency of the trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was posted as a Mandi Sachiv and, as per the allegation, complainant was a Mandi Assistant and to release his ACP (Assured Career Progression), applicant allegedly made a demand of bribe of Rs.20,000/- from him, and thereafter, he was apprehended by the trap team while he was receiving the bribe money of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant but the entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

6. He further submits that on 05.08.2025, applicant transferred the complainant and against that transfer order, when complainant filed his representation on 06.08.2025 then his representation has also been 2 BAIL No. 30621 of 2025 dismissed and only due to this reason, after two days, i.e., on 08.08.2025, complainant made a false complaint against the applicant. He further submits that the transfer order passed by the applicant against the complainant and the complainant’s representation have been annexed at pages 44 and 47 of the paper book respectively.

7. He further submits that even from the FIR, it reflects that the recovery memo of the alleged trap has not been prepared at the spot and the same was prepared at the police station and this fact casts serious doubt on the entire trap proceedings.

8. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and investigation of the case has been completed, and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 13.08.2025, i.e., for the last more than two months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is a dishonest public servant and he not only made demand of bribe but was also apprehended red-handed by the trap team while he was receiving the bribe from the complainant but he could not dispute the arguments of facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

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

11. As per the allegation, applicant was Mandi Secretary and to release the ACP of the complainant, who was a Mandi Assistant he made a demand of bribe of Rs.20,000/- from him and thereafter he was arrested red-handed by the trap team but it reflects that complainant made the complaint against the applicant on 08.08.2025 and before that on

05.08.2025, applicant had transferred the complainant, and thereafter he on 06.08.2025 also filed a representation and, therefore, it reflects that after the alleged transfer complainant moved complaint against the applicant.

12. Considering above fact, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that as complaint had been transferred on 05.08.2025, 3 BAIL No. 30621 of 2025 therefore, on 08.08.2025 he filed false complaint against the applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage.

13. Further, even from the FIR, it reflects that the recovery memo of the case has not been prepared at the spot and the same was prepared at the police station. Considering this fact also this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact also casts serious doubt on the trap proceedings.

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

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 - Mahendra Kumar Gupta 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.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will 4 BAIL No. 30621 of 2025 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

2. Sri R.K. Bais, learned Advocate, submits that he has filed his Power on behalf of the applicant day before yesterday in the office of this Court, but his name has not been shown in the cause list.

3. Heard Sri R.K. Bais, learned counsel for the applicant, and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.05 of 2025, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Basti, District Basti during pendency of the trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was posted as a Mandi Sachiv and, as per the allegation, complainant was a Mandi Assistant and to release his ACP (Assured Career Progression), applicant allegedly made a demand of bribe of Rs.20,000/- from him, and thereafter, he was apprehended by the trap team while he was receiving the bribe money of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant but the entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

6. He further submits that on 05.08.2025, applicant transferred the complainant and against that transfer order, when complainant filed his representation on 06.08.2025 then his representation has also been 2 BAIL No. 30621 of 2025 dismissed and only due to this reason, after two days, i.e., on 08.08.2025, complainant made a false complaint against the applicant. He further submits that the transfer order passed by the applicant against the complainant and the complainant’s representation have been annexed at pages 44 and 47 of the paper book respectively.

7. He further submits that even from the FIR, it reflects that the recovery memo of the alleged trap has not been prepared at the spot and the same was prepared at the police station and this fact casts serious doubt on the entire trap proceedings.

8. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and investigation of the case has been completed, and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 13.08.2025, i.e., for the last more than two months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is a dishonest public servant and he not only made demand of bribe but was also apprehended red-handed by the trap team while he was receiving the bribe from the complainant but he could not dispute the arguments of facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

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

11. As per the allegation, applicant was Mandi Secretary and to release the ACP of the complainant, who was a Mandi Assistant he made a demand of bribe of Rs.20,000/- from him and thereafter he was arrested red-handed by the trap team but it reflects that complainant made the complaint against the applicant on 08.08.2025 and before that on

05.08.2025, applicant had transferred the complainant, and thereafter he on 06.08.2025 also filed a representation and, therefore, it reflects that after the alleged transfer complainant moved complaint against the applicant.

12. Considering above fact, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that as complaint had been transferred on 05.08.2025, 3 BAIL No. 30621 of 2025 therefore, on 08.08.2025 he filed false complaint against the applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage.

13. Further, even from the FIR, it reflects that the recovery memo of the case has not been prepared at the spot and the same was prepared at the police station. Considering this fact also this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact also casts serious doubt on the trap proceedings.

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

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 - Mahendra Kumar Gupta 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.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will 4 BAIL No. 30621 of 2025 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