Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24244 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3557 of 2025 Applicant :- Alok Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey,Shivam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State. 2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0001 of 2025 under Sections 12 & 7/7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Anticorruption Banda, District Banda. 3. As per contents of first information report, allegation levelled is that applicant was a conduit for bribery by the Junior Engineer concerned for purposes of providing electricity connection. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not be applicable upon applicant since he does not come within definition of a public servant, being a contractual employee. It is submitted that allegations have primarily been made against Engineer concerned with applicant being made a scapegoat. It is submitted that even otherwise provisions of Section 7A read with Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act indicate a maximum sentence of only up till seven years while applicant without any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 21.03.2025. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that applicant was caught red-handed in a trap at the instance of complaint which was made. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant is not a public servant but only a contractual employee and therefore imputation of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act may not be applicable upon him; other Sections carry a maximum sentence of seven years while applicant without any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 21.03.2025. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant Alok Kumar Mishra, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (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. 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/her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench