State of U.P v. Party

1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 006 of 2025, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti-Corruption, Agra, District ACO, U.P. during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was Police Constable and as per allegation to give permission to complainant for plying E-rickshaw he made demand of bribe of Rs. Fifty Thousand from him on 28.6.2025 and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by Trap Team on 3.7.2025 while he was receiving bribe from him but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He further submits that actually complainant involved in the trade of illegal liquor and on 27.6.2025 at about 23.55 hours Police Team arrested him on 28.6.2025 at 1.37 hours in the night and in the Trap Team applicant was one of the Member and this fact is evident from page 93 which is the FIR lodged against the complainant and only due to this reason after release on 30.6.2025 complainant moved complaint against the applicant by stating that on 28.6.2025 he made demand of bribe from him.

5. He further submits that even from the FIR it reflects that after the alleged trap applicant and complainant were taken to the Police Station and at Police Station their hands were washed and at Police Station alleged recovered bribe money was sealed and at Police Station recovery 2 BAIL No. 35727 of 2025 memo of trap was prepared and these facts also cast serious doubt on the prosecution case.

6. He further submits that investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is not having any other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 3.7.2025, i.e., for the last more than three months.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is dishonest Police Officer and he not only made demand of bribe but he was also apprehended red handed by Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. Fifty Thousand from the complainant and even bribe money was also allegedly recovered from his possession but learned AGA could not dispute that complainant moved complaint against the applicant on 30.6.2025 with the allegation that on 28.6.2025 applicant made demand of bribe but prior to this on 27.6.2025 at about 23.55 hours complainant was arrested by the Police Team as he was involved in the trade of illegal liquor and in the Police Team applicant was one of the Member.

8. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects that after alleged trap applicant and complainant were taken to the Police Station and at Police Station their hands were washed and at Police Station even alleged recovered bribe money was sealed and at Police Station recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared.

9. He also could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is jail for the last more than three months.

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

11. However, applicant was Police Constable and as per allegation on

28.6.2025 he made demand of bribe of Rs. Fifty Thousand from the complainant to give permission to him for plying E-rickshaw and thereafter on 3.7.2025 he was apprehended red handed by Trap Team and from his possession bribe money of Rs. Fifty Thousand was also allegedly recovered but from Annexure-7 it reflects that complainant of the case was arrested by the Police Team on 27.6.2025 at 23.55 hours as according to the Police he was involved in the trade of illegal liquor and in Police Team applicant was also one of the member. Considering this fact the 3 BAIL No. 35727 of 2025 argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant with regard to false implication of the applicant can not be ruled out at this stage.

12. Further, even from the FIR it reflects that after the alleged trap applicant and complainant were taken to Police Station and at Police Station their hands were washed and at Police Station even the alleged recovered bribe money was sealed and at Police Station recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared. Considering these facts, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that these facts cast serious doubt on the entire trap proceeding.

13. Further, investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is not having any other previous criminal history to his credit and he is in jail for the last more than three months.

14. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

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-Shubham Chauhan 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.

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 4 BAIL No. 35727 of 2025 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. October 15, 2025 SKM (Sameer Jain,J.) SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 006 of 2025, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti-Corruption, Agra, District ACO, U.P. during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was Police Constable and as per allegation to give permission to complainant for plying E-rickshaw he made demand of bribe of Rs. Fifty Thousand from him on 28.6.2025 and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by Trap Team on 3.7.2025 while he was receiving bribe from him but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He further submits that actually complainant involved in the trade of illegal liquor and on 27.6.2025 at about 23.55 hours Police Team arrested him on 28.6.2025 at 1.37 hours in the night and in the Trap Team applicant was one of the Member and this fact is evident from page 93 which is the FIR lodged against the complainant and only due to this reason after release on 30.6.2025 complainant moved complaint against the applicant by stating that on 28.6.2025 he made demand of bribe from him.

5. He further submits that even from the FIR it reflects that after the alleged trap applicant and complainant were taken to the Police Station and at Police Station their hands were washed and at Police Station alleged recovered bribe money was sealed and at Police Station recovery 2 BAIL No. 35727 of 2025 memo of trap was prepared and these facts also cast serious doubt on the prosecution case.

6. He further submits that investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is not having any other criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 3.7.2025, i.e., for the last more than three months.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is dishonest Police Officer and he not only made demand of bribe but he was also apprehended red handed by Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. Fifty Thousand from the complainant and even bribe money was also allegedly recovered from his possession but learned AGA could not dispute that complainant moved complaint against the applicant on 30.6.2025 with the allegation that on 28.6.2025 applicant made demand of bribe but prior to this on 27.6.2025 at about 23.55 hours complainant was arrested by the Police Team as he was involved in the trade of illegal liquor and in the Police Team applicant was one of the Member.

8. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects that after alleged trap applicant and complainant were taken to the Police Station and at Police Station their hands were washed and at Police Station even alleged recovered bribe money was sealed and at Police Station recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared.

9. He also could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is jail for the last more than three months.

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

11. However, applicant was Police Constable and as per allegation on

28.6.2025 he made demand of bribe of Rs. Fifty Thousand from the complainant to give permission to him for plying E-rickshaw and thereafter on 3.7.2025 he was apprehended red handed by Trap Team and from his possession bribe money of Rs. Fifty Thousand was also allegedly recovered but from Annexure-7 it reflects that complainant of the case was arrested by the Police Team on 27.6.2025 at 23.55 hours as according to the Police he was involved in the trade of illegal liquor and in Police Team applicant was also one of the member. Considering this fact the 3 BAIL No. 35727 of 2025 argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant with regard to false implication of the applicant can not be ruled out at this stage.

12. Further, even from the FIR it reflects that after the alleged trap applicant and complainant were taken to Police Station and at Police Station their hands were washed and at Police Station even the alleged recovered bribe money was sealed and at Police Station recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared. Considering these facts, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that these facts cast serious doubt on the entire trap proceeding.

13. Further, investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is not having any other previous criminal history to his credit and he is in jail for the last more than three months.

14. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

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-Shubham Chauhan 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.

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 4 BAIL No. 35727 of 2025 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. October 15, 2025 SKM (Sameer Jain,J.) SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad