Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134105 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40959 of 2024 Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Dhiman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh,Rajan Mishra,Sudhanshu Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 10 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)(B), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was posted as Lekpal and as per allegation, complainant moved an application against Inderpal and Manoj, who were constructing illegal construction and thereafter SDM concerned directed the applicant and S.H.O. concerned to look into the matter and take action against them but applicant refused to take action and was making demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from him but entire allegation of making demand of bribe and receiving bribe levelled against the applicant is totally false. 4. He further submitted that actually complainant illegally possessed the property of gramsabha and on 23.11.2023, applicant submitted a report in this regard against him, which has been annexed at page no. 93 of the paper book and only due to this reason complainant made him accused in the present matter with the connivance of trap team. 5. He further submitted that even applicant was not having any authority to take action against the encroacher and as per Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the same authority was vested with Assistant Collector. 6. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 11.09.2024 i.e. for last almost 11 months. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed to the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was Lekpal and he misused his position and he not only made demand of bribe from the complainant but he was also arrested red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from him but could not dispute the fact that as per Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, with regard to illegal encroachment over property of gramsabha, Assistant Collector is authorized to take action and applicant was not having any authority to take action against the alleged encroacher. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail for last almost 11 months. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. However, as per allegation, applicant was posted as Lekpal and he made demand of bribe from the complainant to take action against the persons, who allegedly were making illegal construction and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from him but it reflects, on 23.11.2023, applicant submitted a report against the complainant as he possessed the property of gramsabha. Considering this fact the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to false implication of applicant, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage. 10. Further, it appears, authority to take action against the persons, who were allegedly making illegal construction, was not vested with the applicant and the same authority was vested with Assistant Collector. 11. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 11.09.2024 i.e. for last almost 11 months. 12. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant- Pankaj Kumar Dhiman 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad