State Of U.P. Thru. Anti Corruption Officer Lko. vs Party(s)

Heard Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused–applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 009 of 2025, under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti- Corruption Organization, Lucknow, District A.C.O., U.P. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, owner of vehicle No. UP79AT9444, had his vehicle intercepted by the R.T.O., Unnao, on

16.07.2025. Although the challan was paid and a release certificate issued, the vehicle remained detained as the Mining Inspector did not forward his report to the District Magistrate. During enquiry, Amit Kumar, posted in the Mining Office, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- for release of the vehicle. On the complainant’s written complaint, a confidential enquiry conducted by Inspector Arunesh Kumar Gupta found the allegation prima facie true. Accordingly, a trap team was constituted under Inspector Vinod Kumar. On 23.07.2025, the complainant and his brother visited the Mining Office, where co-accused Amit Kumar directed them to meet Senior Clerk Santosh Kushwaha (the applicant), who allegedly confirmed the demand and later got the release order typed. The complainant was instructed to pay Rs.19,500/- to Amit Kumar and Rs.500/- to Rajnikant Sharma. The trap team apprehended both Amit Kumar and Rajnikant Sharma while accepting the tainted money and recovered Rs.19,500/- from Amit Kumar and Rs.500/- from Rajnikant Sharma. The release order of the vehicle, signed by the 2 BAIL No. 9601 of 2025 Mining Officer, was recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is submitted that vehicle No. UP79AT9444 was seized by the R.T.O. as it was allegedly carrying illegally mined material. Therefore, a release order from the Mining Officer was required, and the informant was obligated to deposit the fine/compounding amount, which, as per the statement of Abhinav Singh, was duly deposited during the trap proceedings on

18.07.2025. This was the reason for the delayed release of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the applicant is a private person and has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged incident. In view of the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he cannot be charged under the said section, as it is applicable only to public servants. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed, and the applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial proceedings. The applicant has duly explained his criminal history in paragraph 13 of the bail application. It is also pointed out that no pre-trap memo was prepared in the present case. The alleged offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years. The applicant is in custody since 23.07.2025. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the severity of the punishment prescribed; and the facts that the applicant is a private person who has been in custody since 23.07.2025; the offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years; the applicant has already undergone 3 BAIL No. 9601 of 2025 incarceration for more than three months; as also considering the undertaking given by the applicant to cooperate with the trial proceedings, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Amit Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant 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 of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). 4 BAIL No. 9601 of 2025 It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. October 27, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused–applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 009 of 2025, under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti- Corruption Organization, Lucknow, District A.C.O., U.P. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, owner of vehicle No. UP79AT9444, had his vehicle intercepted by the R.T.O., Unnao, on

16.07.2025. Although the challan was paid and a release certificate issued, the vehicle remained detained as the Mining Inspector did not forward his report to the District Magistrate. During enquiry, Amit Kumar, posted in the Mining Office, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- for release of the vehicle. On the complainant’s written complaint, a confidential enquiry conducted by Inspector Arunesh Kumar Gupta found the allegation prima facie true. Accordingly, a trap team was constituted under Inspector Vinod Kumar. On 23.07.2025, the complainant and his brother visited the Mining Office, where co-accused Amit Kumar directed them to meet Senior Clerk Santosh Kushwaha (the applicant), who allegedly confirmed the demand and later got the release order typed. The complainant was instructed to pay Rs.19,500/- to Amit Kumar and Rs.500/- to Rajnikant Sharma. The trap team apprehended both Amit Kumar and Rajnikant Sharma while accepting the tainted money and recovered Rs.19,500/- from Amit Kumar and Rs.500/- from Rajnikant Sharma. The release order of the vehicle, signed by the 2 BAIL No. 9601 of 2025 Mining Officer, was recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is submitted that vehicle No. UP79AT9444 was seized by the R.T.O. as it was allegedly carrying illegally mined material. Therefore, a release order from the Mining Officer was required, and the informant was obligated to deposit the fine/compounding amount, which, as per the statement of Abhinav Singh, was duly deposited during the trap proceedings on

18.07.2025. This was the reason for the delayed release of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the applicant is a private person and has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged incident. In view of the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he cannot be charged under the said section, as it is applicable only to public servants. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed, and the applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial proceedings. The applicant has duly explained his criminal history in paragraph 13 of the bail application. It is also pointed out that no pre-trap memo was prepared in the present case. The alleged offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years. The applicant is in custody since 23.07.2025. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the severity of the punishment prescribed; and the facts that the applicant is a private person who has been in custody since 23.07.2025; the offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years; the applicant has already undergone 3 BAIL No. 9601 of 2025 incarceration for more than three months; as also considering the undertaking given by the applicant to cooperate with the trial proceedings, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Amit Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant 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 of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). 4 BAIL No. 9601 of 2025 It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. October 27, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench