State of U.P v. Counsel for

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Agrawal, 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. 127 of 2024, Police Station Sikandara, District Agra transferred and registered as Case Crime No. 04 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) P.C. Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Agra during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Clerk in the office of DIOS and as per allegation father of complainant had died and under Dying in Harness Rules he applied for job and his file was allotted to the applicant and applicant was making demand of bribe from him and thereafter on 07.03.2024 he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submits, applicant was petty Clerk and therefore he was not having any authority to give job to the complainant and the authority was vested with DIOS.

5. He further submits, even from the FIR it reflects, at the place where trap was made neither hands of applicant were washed nor recovery memo was prepared and FIR shows that after alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station and at police station his hands were washed and recovery memo was prepared and this fact clearly suggests that entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false and entire trap proceedings is false and fabricated.

6. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 08.03.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant was public servant and he made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter he 2 BAIL No. 45203 of 2024 was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe money from him but could not dispute the fact that applicant was Clerk in the office of DIOS and he was not having any authority to give appointment letter to the complainant and the authority was vested with DIOS.

8. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects, neither hands of the applicant were washed at spot where trap was made nor recovery memo was prepared at spot and after taking to the applicant at police station at police station his hands were washed and recovery memo was prepared.

9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail since

08.03.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

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 office of DIOS and he made demand of bribe from the complainant to do the work of the complaint and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe money of Rs. 5 lakhs from him but it reflects, as per allegation, applicant was making demand of bribe for appointment of the complainant under Dying in Harness Rules and being petty Clerk applicant was not having any authority for the same and the authority was vested with higher officer.

12. Further, from the FIR it reflects, immediately after the alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station and at police station his hands were washed and recovery memo was prepared. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the alleged trap cannot be ruled out at this stage.

13. Further, considering the fact that applicant has been detained in jail for last more than one and half years a report was called from the court concerned which is on record and from its perusal, it reflects, although prosecution proposes to examine as many as 21 witnesses but till date only two witnesses could be examined and there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial, therefore, it appears, trial is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

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

15. 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.

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 3 BAIL No. 45203 of 2024 bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant - Ram Prakash 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 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. September 10, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Agrawal, 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. 127 of 2024, Police Station Sikandara, District Agra transferred and registered as Case Crime No. 04 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) P.C. Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Agra during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Clerk in the office of DIOS and as per allegation father of complainant had died and under Dying in Harness Rules he applied for job and his file was allotted to the applicant and applicant was making demand of bribe from him and thereafter on 07.03.2024 he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 5 lakhs but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

4. He further submits, applicant was petty Clerk and therefore he was not having any authority to give job to the complainant and the authority was vested with DIOS.

5. He further submits, even from the FIR it reflects, at the place where trap was made neither hands of applicant were washed nor recovery memo was prepared and FIR shows that after alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station and at police station his hands were washed and recovery memo was prepared and this fact clearly suggests that entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false and entire trap proceedings is false and fabricated.

6. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 08.03.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant was public servant and he made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter he 2 BAIL No. 45203 of 2024 was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe money from him but could not dispute the fact that applicant was Clerk in the office of DIOS and he was not having any authority to give appointment letter to the complainant and the authority was vested with DIOS.

8. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects, neither hands of the applicant were washed at spot where trap was made nor recovery memo was prepared at spot and after taking to the applicant at police station at police station his hands were washed and recovery memo was prepared.

9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail since

08.03.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

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 office of DIOS and he made demand of bribe from the complainant to do the work of the complaint and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe money of Rs. 5 lakhs from him but it reflects, as per allegation, applicant was making demand of bribe for appointment of the complainant under Dying in Harness Rules and being petty Clerk applicant was not having any authority for the same and the authority was vested with higher officer.

12. Further, from the FIR it reflects, immediately after the alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station and at police station his hands were washed and recovery memo was prepared. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the alleged trap cannot be ruled out at this stage.

13. Further, considering the fact that applicant has been detained in jail for last more than one and half years a report was called from the court concerned which is on record and from its perusal, it reflects, although prosecution proposes to examine as many as 21 witnesses but till date only two witnesses could be examined and there is no allegation that applicant is causing delay in trial, therefore, it appears, trial is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.

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

15. 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.

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 3 BAIL No. 45203 of 2024 bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant - Ram Prakash 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 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. September 10, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad