Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136713 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5291 of 2025 Applicant :- Jai Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Jai Prakash, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 251 of 2024, under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at P.S. Afjalgarh, District Bijnor. 4. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 24.10.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32675 of 2024. The same reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Shahid Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Jai Prakash, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 251 of 2024, under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at P.S. Afjalgarh, District Bijnor. 3. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 22.07.2024 by Gulfam Ahmad against the applicant (Chaprasi), Preetam (Homeguard) and Rajeev Sharma (Amin) with the allegation that he is a driver of a dumper of Rijwan. At about 12:00 am he on his car No. UK 18Q 5750 was roaming around and since overloaded vehicles were being passed through Bhootpuri Tiraha after taking Rs. 1,000/- each he thought of making a complaint of the staff posted there and reached the said place and stated therein that a dumper No. UP 18AT 8922 standing behind which is loaded with sand and is an overloaded vehicle despite the fact that the said vehicle was not overloaded on which a demand of Rs. 1,000/- was made from him. The Amin and the staff take Rs. 1,000/- per vehicle and without entering them in the register clear them from the place on which in order to collect evidence, he took photographs of the notes on his mobile and reached the said place after which on seeing his vehicle, the applicant demanded Rs. 1,000/- from him, he gave him the same notes of which he had taken the photographs. The photographs of notes have already been sent on the private number and CUG number of the SHO concerned, the notes were given to the applicant. No vehicle of the informant was to pass through checkpost but it was only for collecting evidence regarding the illegal act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is merely peon posted in the said checkpost. It is submitted that co-accused Preetam Singh the homeguard has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 32076 of 2024 (Preetam Singh Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 14.10.2024. He further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 17 of the affidavit and is in jail since 23.07.2024. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and was a main person who interacted with the informant and took money from him for clearing his alleged overloaded vehicle. It is submitted that the applicant is thus involved in the present matter. It is submitted that in so far as the co-accused who has been granted bail is concerned, his case is distinguishable with that of the applicant since there is no allegation of any demand or taking money by him. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected. 6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. There is an allegation of his demanding and accepting money for clearing overloaded trucks without making entry at the checkpost. In so far as the co-accused is concerned, the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of co-accused who has been granted bail. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 7. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected." 5. While placing para 26 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it has been submitted that applicant has already been suspended and is facing departmental enquiry. Further while placing para 27 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it has been submitted that charge sheet in the matter has already been submitted. He submits that charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted on 19.9.2024 on which cognizance has been taken on 21.9.2024 by the court concerned. While placing order-sheet of the trial court referred to in para 16 of the affidavit, he has drawn the attention of the Court towards order dated 19.10.2024 and submitted that charge in the matter has been framed against the applicant for offence under Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 16(2) of B.N.S., 2023. Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed before the Court the order sheet of the trial court from 5.11.2024 to 25.6.2025 filed as S.A-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 6.7.2025 which is already on record and submitted that trial in the matter has started in which two witnesses have been examined but still the trial will take time to conclude. It is further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 24 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 23.7.2024. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2024 on merits but could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2024. The charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted on which court concerned took cognizance and charges were framed against the applicant. Two prosecution witnesses have been examined. As per charge-sheet, there are 11 witnesses to be examined as stated in para no.17 of the affidavit in support of bail application. The applicant has been suspended from his service and departmental proceedings are going on against him. The said facts are not disputed by learned counsel for the State. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 9. Let the applicant-Jai Prakash, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one should be of his family member and the other should be of a local person) 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her/him presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her/him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 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 her/him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her/him under Section 269 BNS, 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. 10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad