High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Manish Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lavlesh Kumar Sharma, Narayan Swaroop,Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Jagdish Prasad Mishra,Sunil Kumar Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2024 (present Case Crime No. 08 of 2024), under Sections 7/13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act, Transferred Police Station District Unit Anti Corruption Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was posted as Clerk in the Electricity Department and as per allegation on 20.06.2024 Team of J.E. including applicant after entering in the house of the complainant has taken his electric meter and thereafter applicant informed the complainant that his meter was tampered and he will have to pay fine of Rs. 1,77,724/- and thereafter made demand of bribe of Rs. 70,000/- and when complainant shown his inability to pay Rs. 70,000/- then he agreed for Rs. 5,000/- and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving Rs. 5,000/- from complainant but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submits, even FIR of the present case appears to be based on false facts as it is hard to believe that a public servant who was making demand of bribe of Rs. 70,000/- agreed to accept only Rs. 5,000/-.

5. He further submits, actually when on 20.06.2024 a raid was made then it was found that electric meter of the complainant was tampered and thereafter on 20.06.2024 an FIR was lodged against him under the provisions of Electricity Act, which has been annexed at page-144 of the paper-book and only due to this reason on the basis of false allegation complainant moved an application against applicant and thereafter applicant has been made accused in the present matter with the connivance of Trap Team.

6. He further submits, even being petty Clerk applicant was not authorized to waved off the fine imposed upon the complainant and authority for the same was vested with the S.D.O. concerned.

7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 23.08.2024 i.e. for one year.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was public servant and he not only made demand of bribe but he was also apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 23.08.2024 i.e. for one year.

9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that application against the applicant was moved by the complainant on 20.08.2024 and thereafter trap was made and about two months before on 20.06.2024 a FIR was lodged against the complainant by the Electricity Department as his meter was found tampered and applicant was the member of the team, who made the raid in the house of complainant on 20.06.2024.

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

11. However, as per allegation, applicant was Clerk in the Electricity Department and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 70,000/- and thereafter agreed to accept Rs. 5,000/- and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from him but it reflects, trap was made on 23.08.2024 on the complaint moved by the complainant dated 20.08.2024 and about two months before i.e. on 20.06.2024 an FIR was lodged against the complainant by the Electricity Department as his electric meter was found tampered and applicant was one of the member of the team who checked the meter of the complainant. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant with regard to false implication of the applicant, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

12. Further, even being Clerk applicant was not authorized to either reduce or waved off the fine imposed upon the complainant and the authority was vested with the higher officer.

13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 23.08.2024 i.e. for last one year.

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

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 - Manish 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.

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 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. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Manish Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lavlesh Kumar Sharma, Narayan Swaroop,Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Jagdish Prasad Mishra,Sunil Kumar Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2024 (present Case Crime No. 08 of 2024), under Sections 7/13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act, Transferred Police Station District Unit Anti Corruption Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was posted as Clerk in the Electricity Department and as per allegation on 20.06.2024 Team of J.E. including applicant after entering in the house of the complainant has taken his electric meter and thereafter applicant informed the complainant that his meter was tampered and he will have to pay fine of Rs. 1,77,724/- and thereafter made demand of bribe of Rs. 70,000/- and when complainant shown his inability to pay Rs. 70,000/- then he agreed for Rs. 5,000/- and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving Rs. 5,000/- from complainant but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submits, even FIR of the present case appears to be based on false facts as it is hard to believe that a public servant who was making demand of bribe of Rs. 70,000/- agreed to accept only Rs. 5,000/-.

5. He further submits, actually when on 20.06.2024 a raid was made then it was found that electric meter of the complainant was tampered and thereafter on 20.06.2024 an FIR was lodged against him under the provisions of Electricity Act, which has been annexed at page-144 of the paper-book and only due to this reason on the basis of false allegation complainant moved an application against applicant and thereafter applicant has been made accused in the present matter with the connivance of Trap Team.

6. He further submits, even being petty Clerk applicant was not authorized to waved off the fine imposed upon the complainant and authority for the same was vested with the S.D.O. concerned.

7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 23.08.2024 i.e. for one year.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was public servant and he not only made demand of bribe but he was also apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 23.08.2024 i.e. for one year.

9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that application against the applicant was moved by the complainant on 20.08.2024 and thereafter trap was made and about two months before on 20.06.2024 a FIR was lodged against the complainant by the Electricity Department as his meter was found tampered and applicant was the member of the team, who made the raid in the house of complainant on 20.06.2024.

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

11. However, as per allegation, applicant was Clerk in the Electricity Department and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 70,000/- and thereafter agreed to accept Rs. 5,000/- and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from him but it reflects, trap was made on 23.08.2024 on the complaint moved by the complainant dated 20.08.2024 and about two months before i.e. on 20.06.2024 an FIR was lodged against the complainant by the Electricity Department as his electric meter was found tampered and applicant was one of the member of the team who checked the meter of the complainant. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant with regard to false implication of the applicant, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

12. Further, even being Clerk applicant was not authorized to either reduce or waved off the fine imposed upon the complainant and the authority was vested with the higher officer.

13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 23.08.2024 i.e. for last one year.

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

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 - Manish 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.

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 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. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad