Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6572 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 903 of 2025 Applicant :- Samarjeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Yadava,Ashwani Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 16.09.2024, in FIR/ Case Crime No. 07 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Anti Corruption Ayodhya, District- Ayodhya/ ACO U.P. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the applicant has been made sole accused. As per the allegation levelled in the FIR, the applicant, who is serving on the post of Peshkar of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur demanded the bribe of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to provide interim order. There is no material or evidence to show that the applicant demanded the bribe, however, the alleged amount of bribe of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) has been recovered from the possession of the applicant in the police station as the exercise of hand washing was carried out in the police station. The aforesaid trap is also misconceived inasmuch as had the applicant demanded any bribe and had received the same, the same could have been recovered from him at the place where he allegedly received the amount of bribe. Since he did not demand any bribe, therefore, the same has not been recovered from his possession at the place where the alleged amount of bribe was given. Therefore, in absence of any specific evidence of demanding bribe, the F.I.R. and the charge sheet would be misconceived. He has stated that the applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and his entire service record is unblemished, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant undertakes that if he is enlarged on bail, he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. 6. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the alleged amount of bribe of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) has not been recovered from the possession of the applicant at the place where he allegedly received the amount of bribe, instead the amount of bribe is allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant in the police station as the exercise of hand washing was carried out in the police station; the applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; his entire service record is unblemished and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant- Samarjeet be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 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. (ii) 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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) 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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Order Date :- 29.1.2025 (Manoj K.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench