State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko vs Party(s)

Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record. Rejoinder Affidavit filed by leanred counsel fo rthe applicant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.10 of 2025 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Lucknow. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the complainant, who is an “A” Class Contractor of the PCF, Lakhimpur Kheri, submitted a written complaint to the Anti-Corruption Unit, Lucknow Division, alleging that Store In-charge Himanshu Gautam (the present applicant) and Desk Assistant Anil Verma, both employees of PCF, Lakhimpur Kheri, were demanding illegal gratification for verifying and forwarding his transport bills amounting to Rs.40,00,000/-, which had been submitted to Desk Assistant Anil Verma. It is alleged that out of Rs.40,00,000/-, Rs.14,00,000/- had already been paid, while the remaining Rs.26,00,000/- was pending. It is further alleged that a demand of Rs.70,000/- was made by co-accused Anil Verma and Rs.20,000/- by Store Keeper Himanshu Gautam (the 2 BAIL No. 10126 of 2025 applicant). The complainant, instead of meeting the illegal demand, lodged a complaint before the Anti-Corruption Department. Upon receipt of the complaint, an enquiry was conducted and, thereafter, a trap team was constituted. After completing the necessary formalities, the trap team proceeded from Lucknow on 23.08.2025 and contacted the informant. It is alleged that co-accused Anil Verma called the informant near the Roadways Bus Stand and demanded Rs.70,000/-, which was handed over to him by the informant, whereupon he was caught red-handed by the trap team. Thereafter, in the same manner, the applicant was called near Gurunanak Inter College, where he was apprehended while accepting a bribe of Rs.20,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are three recoveries shown in this case. An amount of Rs.70,000/- from Anil Verma near the Roadways Bus Stand, Rs.20,000/- from the present applicant near Guru Nanak School, which is a separate place of incident, and thereafter certain documents were recovered from the PCF Office, Lakhimpur Kheri, on the pointing out of Anil Verma. It is submitted that despite the said recoveries having been made from three different places, no recovery memo was prepared at the spot. The accused persons were taken for medical examination to the District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri, and only thereafter a joint recovery memo was prepared by the trap team. It is further submitted that since recoveries have been made from distinct places and from each accused separately, preparation of a common recovery memo for all was improper and contrary to procedure. Such a version of recovery appears highly improbable and doubtful. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The charge sheet has already been filed. The applicant is a government servant and undertakes to cooperate with the trial. 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 prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant was caught red-handed and that this is not a case of anticipatory bail. 3 BAIL No. 10126 of 2025 I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On due consideration of the facts that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the offence alleged is punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years, the applicant is in custody since 24.08.2025, the manner in which the recovery memo has been prepared and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Himanshu Shekhar 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 4 BAIL No. 10126 of 2025 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). 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. November 3, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record. Rejoinder Affidavit filed by leanred counsel fo rthe applicant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.10 of 2025 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Lucknow. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the complainant, who is an “A” Class Contractor of the PCF, Lakhimpur Kheri, submitted a written complaint to the Anti-Corruption Unit, Lucknow Division, alleging that Store In-charge Himanshu Gautam (the present applicant) and Desk Assistant Anil Verma, both employees of PCF, Lakhimpur Kheri, were demanding illegal gratification for verifying and forwarding his transport bills amounting to Rs.40,00,000/-, which had been submitted to Desk Assistant Anil Verma. It is alleged that out of Rs.40,00,000/-, Rs.14,00,000/- had already been paid, while the remaining Rs.26,00,000/- was pending. It is further alleged that a demand of Rs.70,000/- was made by co-accused Anil Verma and Rs.20,000/- by Store Keeper Himanshu Gautam (the 2 BAIL No. 10126 of 2025 applicant). The complainant, instead of meeting the illegal demand, lodged a complaint before the Anti-Corruption Department. Upon receipt of the complaint, an enquiry was conducted and, thereafter, a trap team was constituted. After completing the necessary formalities, the trap team proceeded from Lucknow on 23.08.2025 and contacted the informant. It is alleged that co-accused Anil Verma called the informant near the Roadways Bus Stand and demanded Rs.70,000/-, which was handed over to him by the informant, whereupon he was caught red-handed by the trap team. Thereafter, in the same manner, the applicant was called near Gurunanak Inter College, where he was apprehended while accepting a bribe of Rs.20,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are three recoveries shown in this case. An amount of Rs.70,000/- from Anil Verma near the Roadways Bus Stand, Rs.20,000/- from the present applicant near Guru Nanak School, which is a separate place of incident, and thereafter certain documents were recovered from the PCF Office, Lakhimpur Kheri, on the pointing out of Anil Verma. It is submitted that despite the said recoveries having been made from three different places, no recovery memo was prepared at the spot. The accused persons were taken for medical examination to the District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri, and only thereafter a joint recovery memo was prepared by the trap team. It is further submitted that since recoveries have been made from distinct places and from each accused separately, preparation of a common recovery memo for all was improper and contrary to procedure. Such a version of recovery appears highly improbable and doubtful. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The charge sheet has already been filed. The applicant is a government servant and undertakes to cooperate with the trial. 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 prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant was caught red-handed and that this is not a case of anticipatory bail. 3 BAIL No. 10126 of 2025 I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On due consideration of the facts that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the offence alleged is punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years, the applicant is in custody since 24.08.2025, the manner in which the recovery memo has been prepared and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Himanshu Shekhar 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 4 BAIL No. 10126 of 2025 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). 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. November 3, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench