Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146303 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 667 of 2025 Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off. 2. Heard Sri Upendra Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Shiv Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 16 of 2024, under Sections 7, 12 P.C. Act and 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Anti Corruption Moradabad, District Anti Corruption Organization U.P. with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and he was Investigating Officer of a criminal case in which complainant and his sons were accused and as per allegation he made demand of bribe of Rs. 40,000/- from him to exonerate him and his sons from the case. 5. He next submits, as per further allegation, applicant instructed the complainant to give Rs. 15,000/- as first installment of bribe on 23.09.2024 and instructed him to give the bribe money to co-accused Kaushal Kumar, the police constable and thereafter on 23.09.2024 co-accused Kaushal Kumar, constable was apprehended by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe money. He further submits, entire allegations leveled against the applicant are totally false. 6. He further submits, admittedly applicant did not accept bribe money and only allegation against him is that he made demand of bribe from the complainant but in fact he never made demand of bribe from him too. 7. He further submits, actually complainant wanted that applicant exonerate him and his family members and when applicant refused to do so then he implicated the applicant in the present matter on the basis of false allegation of demand of bribe. 8. He further submits, during investigation Investigating Officer did not arrest the applicant though applicant fully cooperated with the investigation. He further submits, after service of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. charge-sheet has been filed against him. 9. He further submits, after submission of the charge-sheet custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary. He further submits, applicant is having apprehension that if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail. 10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that applicant appears to be prime accused as he was Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and he made demand of bribe and on his behest co- accused received bribe money but could not dispute the fact that during investigation applicant was not arrested and he is not having any criminal history. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, as per allegation, applicant was Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and he was Investigating Officer of the case in which complainant and his sons were accused and he made demand of bribe from him to exonerate them and thereafter co-accused Kaushal Kumar head constable apprehended red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 15,000/- but it reflects, during investigation applicant has not been arrested and there is no allegation that he did not cooperate with the investigation. 13. Further, charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that after submission of the charge-sheet custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required cannot be ruled out. 14. Further apprehension of arrest raised by the applicant can also not be brushed aside at this stage. 15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed NABAIL No. 667 of 2025 2 above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 18. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ravi Prakash involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions:- i. that 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; ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; 19. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant. 20. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 AK Pandey NABAIL No. 667 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad