High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142325 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33942 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt Tarawati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Pal Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Jha Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Jitendra Pal Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Mukesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 120 of 2024, under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Lal Kurti, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Regional Supply Inspector and as per allegation for verification of the stock of the fair price shop of father of the complainant she made demand of bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from him and thereafter she was apprehended red handed by the trap team while she was receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 4. He further submitted that from the FIR it reflects, after the alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station Lal Kurti and in the police station her hands were washed and recovery memo and other documents related to trap were prepared and this fact casts serious doubt on the entire trap proceeding. 5. He further submitted that father of the complainant was running the fair price shop since the year 2003 and applicant was posted in District Meerut since the year 2018 but he never made any complaint against the applicant. 6. He further submitted that actually applicant being Regional Supply Inspector did her work very diligently and strictly and he imposed fine of Rs. 10,000/- upon number of fair price shop owners including one Shadab Khan who was cousin brother of the complainant and only due to this reason applicant has been made accused in the present matter with the connivance of trap team. He further submitted that the report of applicant dated 1.8.2024 which shows that she took action against 8 persons has been filed at page 122 of the paper book. 7. He further submitted that applicant is lady and apart from the present case, she is having no previous criminal history to his credit and is in jail in the present matter since 19.7.2024 i.e. for last more than a year. 8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was public servant and she not only made demand of bribe from the complainant but she was also apprehended red handed by the trap team and at this stage, trap proceeding cannot be doubted. 9. They, however, could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects that after the alleged trap applicant was taken to the police station and at police station her hands were washed and recovery memo and other documents related to trap were prepared. 10. They however further submitted that applicant is a very dishonest public servant and one Mrs. Anuradha the another fair price shop owner also moved an application against her with regard to the demand of bribe and her application has been annexed by the complainant in the counter affidavit but they could not dispute the fact that this complaint was moved by Anuradha the fair price shop owner against the applicant on 26.7.2023 while from page 122 of paper book it reflects on 24.7.2023 applicant imposed Rs. one thousand fine upon her. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, however, further submitted that when pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, complainant attended the trial court then applicant threatened him and in this regard application has been moved by him against her but he fairly conceded that on his application no FIR can be lodged. 12. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant however could not dispute the fact that applicant is lady and she is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, she is in jail since 19.7.2024 i.e. for last more than a year. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 14. As per allegation made against the applicant she was posted as Regional Supply Inspector and for verification of the stock of the fair price shop of the father of the applicant she made demand of bribe and she was arrested red handed by the trap team but from the FIR it reflects that after the alleged arrest and raid applicant has been taken to the police station and at police station her hands were washed and recovery memo and other document relating to trap were prepared. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the alleged trap cannot be ruled out at this stage. 15. Further, however, from the counter affidavit filed by the complainant it reflects one Anuradha another fair price shop owner also moved an application against the applicant that she was making demand of bribe from her but it reflects, she moved the application after 24.7.2023 and from page 122 of the paper book it reflects applicant imposed fine against 8 fair price shop owners including Anuradha and she imposed the fine upon them on 24.7.2024, therefore, it appears Anuradha fair price shop owner after taking action by the applicant against her moved application against the applicant. 16. Further applicant is lady and she is not having any previous criminal history to her credit and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 19.7.2024 i.e. for last more than a year. 17. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant-Smt Tarawati, 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 her 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 :- 20.8.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad