Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115780 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7095 of 2025 Applicant :- Ambesh Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aalok Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Dubey,Sr. Advocate,Umang Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2025, under Sections 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Gonda, District Gonda during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, as per allegation, applicant was posted as S.S.O. (Technician) in the Electricity Department and on the instructions of co-accused Jitendra Kumar Mishra, who was Junior Engineer, he accepted bribe of Rs. 8,000/- from the complainant and was arrested red handed by the Trap Team but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false. 4. He further submits, admittedly applicant did not make any demand of bribe and same was made by co-accused Jitendra Kumar Mishra and he has already been released on anticipatory bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 B.N.S.S. No. 5423 of 2025. 5. He next submits, even from the FIR it reflects, applicant himself did not accept bribe and as per prosecution on his instructions bribe money was put by the complainant in a drawer and same was recovered from the drawer, therefore, even story of acceptance of bribe narrated in the FIR prima facie appears to be doubtful. 6. He further submits, even as per allegation, co-accused Jitendra Kumar Mishra made demand of bribe for providing permanent electricity connection and applicant was not authorized to give electricity connection to the complainant and the said authority was vested with the Junior Engineer. 7. He further submits, investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 05.02.2025 i.e. for last five months and he is not having any criminal history. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant was apprehended red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 8,000/- from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that applicant himself did not make any demand of bribe and he received the alleged bribe on the instructions of co-accused Jitendra Kumar Mishra and co-accused Jitendra Kumar Mishra has already been released on anticipatory bail by this Court. 9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 05.02.2025 i.e. for last five months. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per allegation, applicant posted as S.S.O. (Technician) in the Electricity Department and received bribe of Rs. 8,000/- from the complainant on the instructions of co-accused Jitendra Kumar Mishra, who was Junior Engineer and was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team but there is no allegation that applicant made any demand of bribe from the complainant and admittedly same was made by co-accused Jitendra Kumar Mishra, who was Junior Engineer and co-accused Jitendra Kumar Mishra has been released on anticipatory bail by this Court. 12. Further, being S.S.O. (Technician) in the department, it appears, applicant was not authorized to provide permanent electricity connection to the complainant for which demand was made by co-accused and the same was vested with co-accused Jitendra Kumar Mishra, the Junior Engineer. 13. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 05.02.2025 i.e. for last five months and for offence under Section 7 The Prevention of Corruption Act, the maximum punishment is seven years. 14. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant - Ambesh Kumar Srivastava be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad