HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36707 of 2025 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, 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.11 of 2025, under Sections 7 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as amended by the Amendment Act, 2018, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanapur (transferred and registered as Case Crime No.009 of 2025, Police Station Anti Corruption, Saharanpur District ACO U.P.) during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per allegation applicant was posted as Steno in the office of the DIOS and he for reverting back the data of the students made demand of bribe of Rs. Five Thousand from the complainant, who was Manager in an Educational Institute and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs.Five Thousand but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 4. He further submits that even from the FIR it reflects that after the trap applicant was taken to the Police Station and at Police Station his hands were washed and at the Police Station the alleged recovered bribe money was seized and sealed and thereafter recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared at Police Station. He next submits that these facts cast serious doubt on the entire trap proceedings. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ajay Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. He further submits that investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 25.7.2025, i.e., for the last more than three months. 6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is dishonest public servant and he not only made demand of bribe of Rs. Five Thousand from the complainant but subsequently he was apprehended red handed by Trap Team too and even bribe money of Rs. Five Thousand was also recovered from his possession but he could not dispute the fact that at the place of trap neither hands of the applicant were washed nor recovery memo was prepared nor alleged recovered bribe money was seized and sealed and these formalities were completed at the Police Station. 7. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is in jail for the last more than three months and he is not having any criminal history. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. However, as per allegation applicant was posted as Steno in the office of DIOS and he made demand of bribe of Rs. Five Thousand from the complainant, who was Manager of an Educational Institute for reverting back the data of the students and he was also allegedly apprehended by Trap Team but it reflects that neither even hands of the applicant were washed at spot nor alleged recovered bribe money was seized and sealed at spot. Record also suggests that recovery memo of the alleged trap has also not been prepared at the place where trap was made and all these formalities have been completed at Police Station. Considering this fact the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that these facts cast serious doubt on the entire trap proceedings, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 10. Further, investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is in jail since 25.7.2025, i.e., for the last more than three months and is not having any criminal history. BAIL No. 36707 of 2025 2 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 either for punitive or preventive purposes. 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-Ajay 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. October 27, 2025 SKM BAIL No. 36707 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad