Anil Verma State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko v. Counsel for

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, an A-Class Contractor of PCF, Lakhimpur Kheri, submitted a written complaint to the Anti-Corruption Unit, Lucknow Division, alleging that Desk Assistant Anil Verma (the present applicant) and Store In-charge Himanshu Gautam, both employees of PCF, Lakhimpur Kheri, demanded 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 stated that out of the said amount, 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 the applicant Anil Verma and Rs. 20,000/- by co-accused Himanshu Gautam. The complainant, instead of complying with 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 met the informant. 2 BAIL No. 10642 of 2025 It is alleged that the applicant Anil Verma called the informant near the Roadways Bus Stand and demanded Rs. 70,000/-, which the informant handed over to him, whereupon he was caught red-handed by the trap team. Subsequently, in a similar manner, co-accused Himanshu Gautam was apprehended near Gurunanak Inter College while accepting a bribe of Rs. 20,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that three separate recoveries have been shown in the case Rs. 70,000/- from the applicant Anil Verma near the Roadways Bus Stand, Rs. 20,000/- from co-accused Himanshu Gautam near Gurunanak School, and certain documents recovered from the PCF Office, Lakhimpur Kheri, on the pointing out of the applicant. It is submitted that despite recoveries having been made from three distinct locations, no recovery memo was prepared on the spot. Instead, the accused persons were taken to the District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri, for medical examination, and thereafter, a joint recovery memo was prepared by the trap team. It is further submitted that since the recoveries were made separately and from different places, the preparation of a common recovery memo for all accused persons is improper and contrary to established procedure, rendering the prosecution version doubtful. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge sheet has been filed, and he is a government employee who undertakes to cooperate with the trial. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Himanshu Shekhar from whom recovery of Rs. 20,000/- was made has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2025 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 10126 of 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused. It is also contended that there is no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with the witnesses. In case he is released on bail, he undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer, contending that the applicant was caught red-handed and that this is not a case for anticipatory bail. 3 BAIL No. 10642 of 2025 Having considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record, and taking into account that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, co- accused from whom Rs. 20000/- was made has been granted bail; the alleged offence is punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years, he is in custody since 24.08.2025, and also considering the manner in which the recovery memo was prepared, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Anil Verma 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 4 BAIL No. 10642 of 2025 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 6, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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, an A-Class Contractor of PCF, Lakhimpur Kheri, submitted a written complaint to the Anti-Corruption Unit, Lucknow Division, alleging that Desk Assistant Anil Verma (the present applicant) and Store In-charge Himanshu Gautam, both employees of PCF, Lakhimpur Kheri, demanded 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 stated that out of the said amount, 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 the applicant Anil Verma and Rs. 20,000/- by co-accused Himanshu Gautam. The complainant, instead of complying with 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 met the informant. 2 BAIL No. 10642 of 2025 It is alleged that the applicant Anil Verma called the informant near the Roadways Bus Stand and demanded Rs. 70,000/-, which the informant handed over to him, whereupon he was caught red-handed by the trap team. Subsequently, in a similar manner, co-accused Himanshu Gautam was apprehended near Gurunanak Inter College while accepting a bribe of Rs. 20,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that three separate recoveries have been shown in the case Rs. 70,000/- from the applicant Anil Verma near the Roadways Bus Stand, Rs. 20,000/- from co-accused Himanshu Gautam near Gurunanak School, and certain documents recovered from the PCF Office, Lakhimpur Kheri, on the pointing out of the applicant. It is submitted that despite recoveries having been made from three distinct locations, no recovery memo was prepared on the spot. Instead, the accused persons were taken to the District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri, for medical examination, and thereafter, a joint recovery memo was prepared by the trap team. It is further submitted that since the recoveries were made separately and from different places, the preparation of a common recovery memo for all accused persons is improper and contrary to established procedure, rendering the prosecution version doubtful. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge sheet has been filed, and he is a government employee who undertakes to cooperate with the trial. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Himanshu Shekhar from whom recovery of Rs. 20,000/- was made has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2025 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 10126 of 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused. It is also contended that there is no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with the witnesses. In case he is released on bail, he undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer, contending that the applicant was caught red-handed and that this is not a case for anticipatory bail. 3 BAIL No. 10642 of 2025 Having considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record, and taking into account that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, co- accused from whom Rs. 20000/- was made has been granted bail; the alleged offence is punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years, he is in custody since 24.08.2025, and also considering the manner in which the recovery memo was prepared, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Anil Verma 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 4 BAIL No. 10642 of 2025 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 6, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench