Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129245 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42901 of 2024 Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amresh Bahadur Tiwari,Anil Kumar,Lal Dev Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Laldev Chaurasia, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.05 of 2024, under Sections 7,13(1)(B) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Ayodhya during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was posted as Lekhpal and as per allegation complainant moved an application for demarcation of the property before SDM concerned and when SDM referred the matter to the applicant then applicant started making demand of bribe of Rs. Ten Thousand from him and thereafter he was arrested red handed by Trap Team while he was receiving Rs. Ten Thousand from him but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false. 4. He further submits that actually complainant never applied for demarcation of the property under the provisions of U.P.Revenue Code and he only moved an application on 24.7.2024 which has been annexed at page 8 of the supplementary affidavit dated 26.11.2024 for taking possession of the property in question and SDM concerned referred the application dated 24.7.2024 to SO concerned and applicant, i.e., Lekhpal, to solve the dispute on the basis of consent of the parties and when applicant tried to settle the dispute pursuant to the direction given by SDM concerned then complainant started making pressure upon the applicant for demarcation and when applicant refused for the same then he with the connivance of the Trap Team implicated the applicant in the present matter. 5. He further submits that applicant is responsible public servant and till the alleged trap his service record was unblemished and apart from the present case applicant is not having any other criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 25.8.2024, i.e., for the last more than 11 months. 6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was Lekhpal and he misused his position and made demand of bribe of Rs. Ten Thousand from the complainant and thereafter he was arrested red handed by Trap Team while he was receiving bribe from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that as per complainant bribe was being made by applicant for demarcation but there is no application for demarcation of the complainant on record and from the record it reflects that complainant moved an application for taking possession over the property in question. 7. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail for almost a year. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. However, as per allegation applicant was Lekhpal and he made demand of bribe of Rs. Ten Thousand from the complainant and was also apprehended by Trap Team while he was receiving bribe from the complainant but it reflects that as per allegation applicant made demand of bribe from the complainant for demarcation of his property which was entrusted to him by the SDM concerned but from the record it could not be reflected that complainant ever moved any application for demarcation under the provisions of U.P.Revenue Code and from the record it only reflects that on 24.7.2024 he moved an application before the SDM concerned for taking possession over the property in question. Considering this fact, the entire allegation for demand of bribe by applicant prima facie appears to be doubtful. 10. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and in the present matter he is in jail since 25.8.2024, i.e., for almost a year. 11. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 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-Jitendra Kumar 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. 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. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad