HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9732 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard Shri Vishwajeet Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Nikita Mishra, learned AGA for the State. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 10.09.2025, the informant, Brij Mohan Mishra, approached the Anti-Corruption Organization, Jhansi, stating that after retiring as a clerk from Mandi Samiti, Jhansi, in July 2017, he had been granted grade-pay of Rs. 4,200/- (effective from 29.03.2015), despite requesting Rs. 4,600/-, which had been accorded to others in a similar position. His subsequent requests for revision were not acted upon. Letters submitted to the Joint Director resulted in a directive dated 03.05.2024, instructing the Deputy Director to take legal action as per rules. However, the Deputy Director did not revise the salary, and on 24.01.2025, an order was issued stating that grade-pay of Rs. 4,600/- or Rs. 4,800/- would not be payable. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, while serving as Deputy Director in Mandi Parishad, rejected the complainant’s representation seeking enhanced grade-pay. Aggrieved by the rejection order dated 24.01.2025, the complainant filed another representation on 03.02.2025, which the applicant forwarded to his superior, having become functus officio, as he had no authority to enhance the grade-pay. It is further submitted that, according to the FIR, a bribe was allegedly found Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pranjal Jain, Purnendu Chakravarty Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shiv Kumar Raghav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) on the applicant’s table, but in the prosecution’s subsequent case, the alleged bribe of Rs. 30,000/- was shown to have been placed inside the applicant’s side table. During the trap, both independent witnesses remained outside the room. It is admitted case of the prosecution that the applicant was locked in another room of the office. There was neither any demand nor acceptance of bribe, as per the prosecution’s own case. It is also admitted that the trap proceedings occurred at 12:40 p.m., after which the applicant was taken to the police station, and her hands were washed at 5:30 p.m. in the police station. During the trap, only the complainant was present inside the room, instead of the independent witnesses. Learned counsel emphasizes that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and Section 105 BNSS was not complied with during the trap, as there was no audio or video recording of the proceedings. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail 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. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, the record, and the fact that the offence is punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment, the manner in which the trap was conducted, prima facie non-compliance of Section 105 BNSS, and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 16.09.2025 without any criminal antecedents, I find this to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Shiv Kumar Raghav involved in FIR No.: 348/2025, Under Sections: 7 of PC Act, 1988, Police Station: Sipri Bazaar, District: Jhansi, be released on bail on his 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) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. BAIL No. 9732 of 2025 2 (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 in accordance with law. (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 IPC (now Section 209 of 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 14, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 9732 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench