Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119044 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11438 of 2025 Applicant :- Sujeet Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Singh,Siddhartha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 24 of 2024, under Sections 7, 13(1)B and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and charge-sheet submitted under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Varanasi, District Varanasi during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was posted as Assistant Accountant/Computer Operator in the office of Block Education Officer and as per allegation on 28.10.2024 when Block Education Officer conducted surprise checking of the school where complainant was Assistant Teacher then he was found absent and thereafter when he made contact with Block Education Officer Sri Avinash Rai then he made demand of bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from him and instructed to meet the applicant and thereafter applicant was arrested red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- on the instruction of Block Education Officer Sri Avinash Rai but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false. 4. He further submits, applicant was private person and he was on contract basis and being Computer Operator/Assistant Accountant was not having any authority to remove the entry made by the Block Education Officer against the complainant. 5. He further submits, even there is no allegation that applicant made any demand of bribe and admittedly same was made by Sri Avinash Rai, the Block Education Officer but surprisingly he was not made accused in the FIR of the present matter. 6. He further submits, from the FIR it reflects, the recovery memo and other documents have not been prepared at spot where trap was conducted and the same was prepared at police station and this fact casts serious doubt on prosecution case. 7. He further submits, for offence under Section 7 P.C. Act demand of bribe and its acceptance both are necessary. 8. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 22.11.2024 i.e. for last eight months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that there is no allegation that applicant also made demand of bribe from the complainant. 10. He further could not dispute the fact that demand of bribe was made by Block Education Officer Avinash Rai and he was not even made accused in the FIR. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 22.11.2024 i.e. for last eight months. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, as per allegation, applicant was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe from the complainant but it reflects, he did not make any demand of bribe and the same was made by Sri Avinash Rai, the Block Education Officer but surprisingly he was not made accused in the FIR of the present case. 13. Further, from the FIR it reflects, recovery memo and other documents of the alleged trap have not been prepared at spot and same have been prepared at police station. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant in this regard, cannot be ruled out. 14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 22.11.2024 i.e. for last eight months. 15. 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. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 18. Let the applicant - Sujeet Kumar Sharma 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 :- 22.7.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad