State of U.P. and Another v. Party

3. Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for C.B.I.

4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in RC No. 12020255A0012, under Sections 61(2) BNS and Section 7 and 7A P.C. Act, Police Station CBI ACB Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Superintendent in CGST and as per allegation there was penalty of Rs. 40-50 lakhs upon the company of complainant and to exonerate from the penalty, applicant made demand of bribe of Rs.4 lakhs and thereafter he was apprehended by CBI along with co-accused Amit Khandelwal and bribe money of Rs. 1 lakh were recovered from the rest room adjacent to the office of the applicant but entire allegations leveled against the applicant are totally false.

6. She next submits, however, as per the complainant upon his company there was penalty of Rs. 40-50 lakhs but in this regard no notice was sent by the department to him and actually applicant neither made any demand of bribe nor he received any bribe money.

7. She next submits, it is admitted case of C.B.I. that applicant did not receive the bribe money rather as per C.B.I. on his instructions bribe money 2 BAIL No. 31444 of 2025 was put by the complainant in the rest room. She further submits, rest room was not in sole possession of the applicant and therefore at this stage it cannot be said that on the instructions of the applicant complainant keep bribe money of Rs. 1 lakh in the rest room which was subsequently recovered.

8. She next submits, from the record it also reflects, on 09.06.2025 complainant moved the complaint against the applicant and on same day pre-trap proceedings and post trap proceedings were conducted and therefore it appears, C.B.I. acted in ultra fast manner which creates doubt on the entire pre trap and post trap proceedings.

9. She further submits, from the verification report which has been annexed by C.B.I. in the counter affidavit it could not be reflected that on the instructions of the applicant complainant arrived his office to give bribe money. She next submits, from the post trap memo rather it reflects, applicant was refusing to accept the bribe money.

10. She further submits, there is no cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant which can suggests that applicant received the alleged bribe money.

11. She next submits, investigation of the case has already been completed and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 10.06.2025 i.e. for last four months.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant was dishonest public servant and he not only made demand of bribe but he also accepted the bribe money along with co-accused Amit Khandelwal. He further submitted that there is ample evidence against the applicant that on his instructions complainant put the bribe money in the rest room which was adjacent to the office of the applicant. He further submits, if C.B.I. in one day conducted the pre trap and post trap then it cannot be said that entire proceedings is false and illegal.

13. He further submits, from the verification report of the C.B.I. which has been annexed along with counter affidavit it is apparent that there was conversation between co-accused Amit Khandelwal and complainant and complainant indicated that between 3 to 3.30 he can meet him and thereafter post trap proceedings was conducted. 3 BAIL No. 31444 of 2025

14. He further submits, as applicant very cleverly did not himself accept the bribe money rather he instructed the complaint to put the bribe money in the rest room, therefore, his hands have not been washed.

15. He further submits,considering the nature of allegation and evidence collected against the applicant he should not be released on bail. However, learned counsel for C.B.I. could not dispute the fact that applicant is detained in jail for last four months and investigation of the case has been completed and service record of the applicant till present matter was unblemished.

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

17. Applicant was posted as Superintendent in CGST and as per allegation penalty of Rs. 40-50 lakhs was due upon the company of the complainant and to exonerate the company from penalty and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 4 lakhs from him and thereafter applicant along with co-accused Amit Khandelwal has been apprehended by the C.B.I. Team and from the rest room which was adjacent to his office bribe money of Rs. 1 lakh was also recovered but it reflects, investigation of the case has been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last four months.

18. Further, however, post trap proceedings was conducted on 09.06.2025 at

16.25 hours i.e. same day when the complaint was filed by the complainant but from the entire record it could not be reflected that whether applicant called the complainant to give illegal gratification to him at 16.25 hours.

19. Further, from the post trap memo it could not be reflected that applicant himself accepted the bribe money and however as per CBI complainant put the bribe in the rest room which was adjacent to the office of applicant and the bribe money was recovered from the rest room but from record it could not be reflected that rest room was in exclusive possession of the applicant.

20. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

21. 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. 4 BAIL No. 31444 of 2025

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

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

24. Let the applicant - Nishan Singh 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 7, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for C.B.I.

4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in RC No. 12020255A0012, under Sections 61(2) BNS and Section 7 and 7A P.C. Act, Police Station CBI ACB Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Superintendent in CGST and as per allegation there was penalty of Rs. 40-50 lakhs upon the company of complainant and to exonerate from the penalty, applicant made demand of bribe of Rs.4 lakhs and thereafter he was apprehended by CBI along with co-accused Amit Khandelwal and bribe money of Rs. 1 lakh were recovered from the rest room adjacent to the office of the applicant but entire allegations leveled against the applicant are totally false.

6. She next submits, however, as per the complainant upon his company there was penalty of Rs. 40-50 lakhs but in this regard no notice was sent by the department to him and actually applicant neither made any demand of bribe nor he received any bribe money.

7. She next submits, it is admitted case of C.B.I. that applicant did not receive the bribe money rather as per C.B.I. on his instructions bribe money 2 BAIL No. 31444 of 2025 was put by the complainant in the rest room. She further submits, rest room was not in sole possession of the applicant and therefore at this stage it cannot be said that on the instructions of the applicant complainant keep bribe money of Rs. 1 lakh in the rest room which was subsequently recovered.

8. She next submits, from the record it also reflects, on 09.06.2025 complainant moved the complaint against the applicant and on same day pre-trap proceedings and post trap proceedings were conducted and therefore it appears, C.B.I. acted in ultra fast manner which creates doubt on the entire pre trap and post trap proceedings.

9. She further submits, from the verification report which has been annexed by C.B.I. in the counter affidavit it could not be reflected that on the instructions of the applicant complainant arrived his office to give bribe money. She next submits, from the post trap memo rather it reflects, applicant was refusing to accept the bribe money.

10. She further submits, there is no cogent and admissible evidence against the applicant which can suggests that applicant received the alleged bribe money.

11. She next submits, investigation of the case has already been completed and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 10.06.2025 i.e. for last four months.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant was dishonest public servant and he not only made demand of bribe but he also accepted the bribe money along with co-accused Amit Khandelwal. He further submitted that there is ample evidence against the applicant that on his instructions complainant put the bribe money in the rest room which was adjacent to the office of the applicant. He further submits, if C.B.I. in one day conducted the pre trap and post trap then it cannot be said that entire proceedings is false and illegal.

13. He further submits, from the verification report of the C.B.I. which has been annexed along with counter affidavit it is apparent that there was conversation between co-accused Amit Khandelwal and complainant and complainant indicated that between 3 to 3.30 he can meet him and thereafter post trap proceedings was conducted. 3 BAIL No. 31444 of 2025

14. He further submits, as applicant very cleverly did not himself accept the bribe money rather he instructed the complaint to put the bribe money in the rest room, therefore, his hands have not been washed.

15. He further submits,considering the nature of allegation and evidence collected against the applicant he should not be released on bail. However, learned counsel for C.B.I. could not dispute the fact that applicant is detained in jail for last four months and investigation of the case has been completed and service record of the applicant till present matter was unblemished.

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

17. Applicant was posted as Superintendent in CGST and as per allegation penalty of Rs. 40-50 lakhs was due upon the company of the complainant and to exonerate the company from penalty and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 4 lakhs from him and thereafter applicant along with co-accused Amit Khandelwal has been apprehended by the C.B.I. Team and from the rest room which was adjacent to his office bribe money of Rs. 1 lakh was also recovered but it reflects, investigation of the case has been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last four months.

18. Further, however, post trap proceedings was conducted on 09.06.2025 at

16.25 hours i.e. same day when the complaint was filed by the complainant but from the entire record it could not be reflected that whether applicant called the complainant to give illegal gratification to him at 16.25 hours.

19. Further, from the post trap memo it could not be reflected that applicant himself accepted the bribe money and however as per CBI complainant put the bribe in the rest room which was adjacent to the office of applicant and the bribe money was recovered from the rest room but from record it could not be reflected that rest room was in exclusive possession of the applicant.

20. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history.

21. 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. 4 BAIL No. 31444 of 2025

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

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

24. Let the applicant - Nishan Singh 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.

25. 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.

26. 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 7, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad