HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9472 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused–applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 009 of 2025, under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti- Corruption Organization, Lucknow, District A.C.O., U.P. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, owner of vehicle No. UP79AT9444, had his vehicle intercepted by the R.T.O., Unnao, on 16.07.2025. Although the challan was paid and a release certificate issued, the vehicle remained detained as the Mining Inspector did not forward his report to the District Magistrate. During enquiry, Amit Kumar, posted in the Mining Office, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- for release of the vehicle. On the complainant’s written complaint, a confidential enquiry conducted by Inspector Arunesh Kumar Gupta found the allegation prima facie true. Accordingly, a trap team was constituted under Inspector Vinod Kumar. On 23.07.2025, the complainant and his brother visited the Mining Office, where co-accused Amit Kumar directed them to meet Senior Clerk Santosh Kushwaha (the applicant), who allegedly confirmed the demand and later got the release order typed. The complainant was instructed to pay Rs.19,500/- to Amit Kumar and Rs.500/- to Rajnikant Sharma. The trap team apprehended both Amit Kumar and Rajnikant Sharma while accepting the tainted money and recovered Rs.19,500/- from Amit Kumar and Rs.500/- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aakash Singh, Akriti Agarwal, Shivang Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajnikant Sharma .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) from Rajnikant Sharma. The release order of the vehicle, signed by the Mining Officer, was recovered from the possession of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged recovery of Rs.500/- from the applicant is false and fabricated. It is contended that the said amount is so trivial that it does not attract the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Moreover, the applicant, being a private person, cannot be charged under Section 7 of the said Act. It is further submitted that the alleged gratification amount is insignificant, and the applicant is a poor person who merely sells tea in the premises in question. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial proceedings and has duly explained his criminal history in paragraph 20 of the bail application. The alleged offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years. The applicant is in custody since 23.07.2025. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the facts that the applicant is in custody since 23.07.2025; the offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years; as also considering the undertaking given by the applicant to cooperate with the trial proceedings, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Rajnikant Sharma be released on bail in aforesaid case BAIL No. 9472 of 2025 2 crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) 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 of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS)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 of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. October 27, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S BAIL No. 9472 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench