Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37370 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21905 of 2024 Applicant :- Shailesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pulak Ganguly,Sr. Advocate,Veerendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. The First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.04.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48817 of 2023. By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant- Shailesh Yadav, who is involved in Case Crime No.1 of 2023, under Sections 7, 13(1)(B), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Mirzapur, District Mirzapur seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that complainant Durga Shankar Yadav gave a complaint dated 16.09.2023 to In-charge Inspector, Anti Corruption Organization, District Mirzapur alleging inter alia that after death of his grandfather, ancestral land being plot nos. 319 and 323, area 0.039 hectare came in the name of his father Kamla Shankar Yadav and the matter is still pending for mutation. He and his father are in actual physical possession over the land in question after death of his grandfather. There is a dispute between him and his neighbour Kamlesh Kumar whose plot number is 324 and the said dispute can be resolved after getting the measurement of the land. On 02.09.2023, Kamlesh Kumar gave an application for measurement of the land, on which, applicant, who is Lekhpal, measured the land but the complainant and his family members were not satisfied with the measurement made by the applicant, despite then, the applicant got the signatures from his brothers on the pretext that he will measure the land again. Being aggrieved, on 07.09.2023, he gave an application to Chief Minister and District Magistrate for re-measurement of the land. Again on 12.09.2023, he gave an application to Chief Minister, District Magistrate and Sub Divisional Officer in public hearing for re-measurement of the land but the applicant demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for re- measurement of the land and demarcating the way. On the said application, a trap team was constituted and on 19.09.2023, the applicant was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/-. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected considering one of the facts that on the application of the complainant, the Sub Divisional Magistrate in public hearing, directed for re-measurement of the land but the applicant demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- for re-measurement of complainant's land and demarcating the ways whereas when complainant was examined before the trial court as P.W.-2 on 31.01.2025, he in his cross examination, has stated inter-alia that no order was passed by Sub Division Magistrate for re- measurement. Referring the said statement, it is argued that since measurement of the land in question was already done and there was no specific order for re-measurement, therefore, the applicant was not under obligation for re-measurement of the land on his own. He also submits that even along with the charge sheet, no such order of Sub Divisional Magistrate for re-measurement of the land has been filed by the Investigating Officer. Hence, the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 19.09.2023 may be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer for bail in the light of the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. but could not dispute that there is no order of Sub Divisional Magistrate on record for re-measurement of the land. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that now the statement of complainant has been recorded before the trial court, hence there is no possibility of tempering the evidence, hence in the light of the statement of complainant/P.W.-2 as noted above, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the second bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant- Shailesh Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) 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. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Sanjeet Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad