Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59262 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5561 of 2025 Applicant :- Shyam Sundar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Pratap Singh,Vinod Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Sections 7/13(1)B and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti Corruption, Varanasi, District Varanasi during the pendency of trial. As per the prosecution case in brief, the complainant-Chandrajeet Yadav gave a complaint dated 26.12.2024 to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, Varanasi making allegations inter alia that land of Nali Chak Marg bearing plot nos. 833, 853 and 853 are in his father's name, which has been occupied by some people of the village, regarding which he gave an application to Sub- Divisional Magistrate. On which Revenue Inspector / Lekhpal was directed to take action in accordance with law. Thereafter on 18.12.2024 and 23.12.2024, applicant who is Lekhpal called him from his mobile no. 9984963437 and demanded bribe of Rs. 5000/- stating that on giving said money, his work will be done. Taking cognizance of the said complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted for prima facie satisfaction to proceed further in the matter. On being satisfied with the opinion given in the enquiry report, a trap team was constituted to catch the person concerned red handed while accepting bribe. The currency notes, already numbered, were coated with an invisible powder and after completing pre- trap proceedings, powder process, etc., the trap team along with independent witnesses and complainant proceeded to designated place to execute the trap proceeding. It is the case of the prosecution that on demand of bribe by the applicant, complainant gave ten treated note Rs.five hundred each and the moment the accused-Shyam Sundar accepted the bribe, the trap team nabbed him red handed. His hands were then dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the colour of solution changes to pink, which prima facie proved that he has taken the currency notes in question. Thereafter Mr. Umashankar Yadav (Inspector) got a first information lodged in the matter on 02.01.2025. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. Applicant shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is convicted. On account of false arrest and recovery of the applicant, villagers have made objection against trap team. The complainant has no concern with land of drainage and chak road, which is not his private property. The arrest and recovery memo were not prepared at the spot. There was no independent witness of the recovery of bribe amount from the possession of the applicant. The complainant has not instituted any suit for dispossession from the land in question against the persons who have occupied the said land. The complainant or his father have no right, title or interest on the said land. The complainant in order to falsely implicate the applicant forcibly put the tainted notes in the pant's pocket of the applicant without his knowledge and ran away from the spot. The applicant has not demanded any money. On the representation dated 03.01.2025 of the Lekhpal Union, District Magistrate directed for inquiry regarding decision adopted by trap team. The report dated 20.01.2025 shows that the complainant forcibly gave bribe money to the applicant. Hence, no offence is made out against the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 03.01.2025, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R. by contending that the procedure of trap has been applied with all fairness. It is specific case of the complainant that after moving an application on 05.12.2024 by the complainant, he was called by the applicant twice on 15.12.2024 and 23.12.2024 from his mobile phone. When complainant met the applicant, he demanded bribe of Rs. 5000/- and later on, he was apprehended alongwith bribe money, hence innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe against the applicant, who was caught red handed while accepting bribe. The offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act stands as a different class as they affect fabric of the society. As on date, there is no credible material on record to presume the false implication of the applicant. No exceptional circumstances have been made out by the applicant. The presumption of innocence cannot be a ground for grant of bail in a trap case. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. In order to ensure corruption free society, liberty of bail is to be denied in larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad