HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10267 of 2025 alongwith CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10145 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant-Mukammil is taken on record. 2. As both the bail applications arise from same case crime number, therefore, both are being disposed off by a common order. 3. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 4. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2025, under Sections 7 and 12 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Mawana, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant-Mukammil was Lekhpal while applicant-Gaurav Singh@Goldi was private person and as per allegation, being Lekhpal, applicant-Mukammil made demand of bribe from the complainant for his Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Munna Khan, Rajan Mishra, Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Rishabh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Munna Khan, Rajan Mishra, Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Rishabh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mukammil .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Gaurav Singh Alias Goldi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) work and thereafter applicant-Gaurav Singh@Goldi received bribe but entire allegation levelled against the applicants were totally false. 6. He further submitted that complainant of the case has been examined by the trial court as PW 1 and during trial, he did not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile and his statement has been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit dated 7.7.2025 filed in support to the instant bail application. 7. He further submitted that from the statement of the complainant recorded before the trial court, it reflects that neither applicant-Mukammil made any demand of bribe nor he gave any bribe to anyone. 8. He further submitted that applicants are having no criminal history to their credit and they are in jail in the present matter since 6.2.2025 i.e. for last more than seven months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant- Mukammil being public servant misused his position and he not only made demand of bribe but he also received bribe from the complainant through the applicant-Gaurav but could not dispute the fact that during trial complainant has turned hostile and as per his statement, none of the applicant either made demand of bribe from him nor he gave bribe money to any of them. 10. They further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter, applicants are in jail for last more than 7 months and applicants are not having any previous criminal history to their credit. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, as per allegation applicant-Mukammil was the Lekhpal and he made demand of bribe from the complainant for his work and thereafter applicant-Gaurav Singh@Goldi received the bribe money on his instruction and thereafter both the applicants were arrested by the trap team but it reflects during trial complainant did not support the prosecution and has been turned hostile. From the statement of the complainant recorded before the trial court which has been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application, it reflects, he neither gave any bribe money to the applicants nor applicants ever made demand of bribe from him. 13. Further, applicants are having no previous criminal history and in the present case, they are in jail for last more than seven months. 14. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes. BAIL No. 10267 of 2025 2 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicants are 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 applicants-Mukammil and Gaurav Singh@Goldi, 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicants 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 applicants. 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. September 9, 2025 Ankita BAIL No. 10267 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad