HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32974 of 2025 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act in Case Crime No. 11 of 2025, Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly, transferred and registered as case crime No. 14 of 2025, Police Station Anti Corruption, Bareilly, District ACO U.P. during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was posted as Sub- Inspector in police department and as per allegation, he was Investigating Officer of a criminal case in which uncle of the complainant was informant and to take his favour he made demand of bribe from complainant and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe money of Rs. 10,000/- from him but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 4. He further submitted that even from the FIR it reflects that after the alleged trap applicant was taken to nearby toll plaza and at this place, hands of applicant and complainant were washed and thereafter they have taken to the police station and at police station recovered money (notes) were seized and at police station recovery memo was prepared and these facts cast serious doubt on the entire trap proceedings. 5. He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 21.6.2025 i.e. for last almost four months and investigation of the case has been completed. 6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant is a dishonest police officer and he not only made demand of bribe but he was also arrested red handed by the trap team and at this stage, entire trap proceedings cannot be discarded but he could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects that after the alleged trap, applicant and complainant were firstly taken to nearby toll plaza where Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sunil Kumar Verma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) their hands were washed and thereafter they were taken to police station where recovered money was seized and sealed and thereafter recovery memo was prepared. 7. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter for last almost four months. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. As per allegation, applicant was police inspector in police department and he was conducting investigation of a criminal case in which uncle of the complainant was informant and to take his favour he made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team but it reflects, after the alleged trap applicant and complainant were firstly taken to nearby toll plaza and at this place, their hands were washed and thereafter they were taken to police station and at police station, recovered money was seized and sealed and thereafter recovery memo were prepared. Considering these facts, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that these facts cast serious doubt on the entire trap proceeding cannot be ruled out at this stage. 10. Further, investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 21.6.2025 i.e. for last almost four months. 11. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant-Sunil Kumar Verma, 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. BAIL No. 32974 of 2025 2 15. 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. 16. 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. October 8, 2025 Ankita BAIL No. 32974 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad