High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR/ Case Crime No. 05 of 2025, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1988), Police Station Anti-Corruption Jhansi, District ACO, U.P.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that no particular date and time as to when the alleged demand was made by the applicant is mentioned and only the general allegation in the complaint dated 15.02.2025 by the informant was made. He also submits that the applicant never demanded or accepted any bribe and without making the prior verification the trap in proceeded and carried out. He next added that no videography of the said trap proceeding has ever been done and as such it is in violation of provisions of Section 105 of BNSS and the offence is punishable upto 7 years. Further submission is that the pre-trap proceeding, which is conducted by the Anti- Corruption Inspector, is apparent that the verification officer did not verify the veracity of the allegation made in the complaint and the same has been done in a mechanical manner and the pre-trap verification report dated 18.02.2025 was prepared. Next submission is that there was no occasion or motive to demand the illegal gratification as the bribe, which is said to be taken of Rs.20,000/- in liew of work that had already been done, uptil 17.02.2025 as all the payment which was recommended to be paid, was paid by the Executive Engineer and the payment of the bribe is said to be done on 19.02.2025. He also submitted that in fact the whole proceedings of trap vitiates in the eyes of law and the ingredients of Section 7 of the Act, 1988 do not attract in the present matter.

4. Adding his argument, he submits that the applicant is a Cashier in the Public Works Department (PWD) and his whole service carrier was above board and he was never involved in any offence. He submits that the chargesheet has been filed and as such there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences. He submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.02.2025 and he undertakes that he will never abscond and cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that on the complaint made by the complainant, the anti-corruption team raided and the applicant was trapped in, while taking bribe of Rs.20,000/-. He submits that the whole proceeding of trial was done in accordance with law. He also submits that the applicant being a public servant is more responsible and that he should be dealt with strictly. Further submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the bribe which is said to be taken by the applicant in lieu of the payment given to the complainant was already been completed on 18.02.2025 and there, prima facie, seems to be no occasion to demand bribe on 19.02.2025. Further, the trap proceedings are also hit by the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act, 1988. This Court also noticed the fact that the chargesheet has been filed and the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is a public servant. There seems to be no possibility that he would flee away from the trial proceedings. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.02.2025 and there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

7. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

8. Let the applicant- Sanjeev Kumar Sahani involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC (Now Section 269 BNS); (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 351 BNSS); and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (Now Section 209 BNS). The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 27.6.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR/ Case Crime No. 05 of 2025, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1988), Police Station Anti-Corruption Jhansi, District ACO, U.P.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that no particular date and time as to when the alleged demand was made by the applicant is mentioned and only the general allegation in the complaint dated 15.02.2025 by the informant was made. He also submits that the applicant never demanded or accepted any bribe and without making the prior verification the trap in proceeded and carried out. He next added that no videography of the said trap proceeding has ever been done and as such it is in violation of provisions of Section 105 of BNSS and the offence is punishable upto 7 years. Further submission is that the pre-trap proceeding, which is conducted by the Anti- Corruption Inspector, is apparent that the verification officer did not verify the veracity of the allegation made in the complaint and the same has been done in a mechanical manner and the pre-trap verification report dated 18.02.2025 was prepared. Next submission is that there was no occasion or motive to demand the illegal gratification as the bribe, which is said to be taken of Rs.20,000/- in liew of work that had already been done, uptil 17.02.2025 as all the payment which was recommended to be paid, was paid by the Executive Engineer and the payment of the bribe is said to be done on 19.02.2025. He also submitted that in fact the whole proceedings of trap vitiates in the eyes of law and the ingredients of Section 7 of the Act, 1988 do not attract in the present matter.

4. Adding his argument, he submits that the applicant is a Cashier in the Public Works Department (PWD) and his whole service carrier was above board and he was never involved in any offence. He submits that the chargesheet has been filed and as such there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences. He submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.02.2025 and he undertakes that he will never abscond and cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that on the complaint made by the complainant, the anti-corruption team raided and the applicant was trapped in, while taking bribe of Rs.20,000/-. He submits that the whole proceeding of trial was done in accordance with law. He also submits that the applicant being a public servant is more responsible and that he should be dealt with strictly. Further submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the bribe which is said to be taken by the applicant in lieu of the payment given to the complainant was already been completed on 18.02.2025 and there, prima facie, seems to be no occasion to demand bribe on 19.02.2025. Further, the trap proceedings are also hit by the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act, 1988. This Court also noticed the fact that the chargesheet has been filed and the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is a public servant. There seems to be no possibility that he would flee away from the trial proceedings. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.02.2025 and there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

7. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

8. Let the applicant- Sanjeev Kumar Sahani involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC (Now Section 269 BNS); (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 351 BNSS); and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (Now Section 209 BNS). The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 27.6.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench