Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114443 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12094 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rishabh Srivastava,Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Shri Vineet Kumar Singh & Shri Rishabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.01 of 2025, under Sections 7, 12 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti Corruption Sector Prayagraj, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was Assistant Teacher in government junior high school and as per allegation, he on the instructions of co-accused Kunwar Kamal, who was B.E.O., received bribe of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant and was arrested red handed by the trap team but entire allegation made against applicant is totally false. 4. He further submits that even from the FIR, it could not be reflected that applicant made any demand of bribe from the complainant and admittedly the same was made by co-accused Kunwar Kamal, the concerned B.E.O. 5. He further submits that for offence under Section 7 P. C. Act, it is necessary that accused must also demand of bribe and therefore, prima-facie offence under Section 7 P. C. Act is not made out against the applicant. 6. He further submits that even being Assistant Teacher, applicant was not having any authority to provide any benefit to the complainant, who was In-charge Head Master of another school and same power was vested with the co-accused Kunwar Kamal, the concerned B.E.O. 7. He further submits that however, apart from the present case earlier also applicant has been made accused in another case of theft but in that case final report has been submitted. 8. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 28.02.2025 i.e. for last more than four months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was Assistant Teacher in government junior high school and he was apprehended red handed while he was receiving bribe from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that there is no allegation that applicant was the person, who also made demand of bribe and the same was made by co-accused Kunwar Kamal, the concerned B.E.O. 10. He further could not dispute the fact that the bribe was being made by the co-accused from the complainant for the purpose to take his favour as during inspection some abnormality was found in his school and applicant was not having any authority to file any report in favour of the complainant. 11. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. Applicant was posted as Assistant Teacher in government junior high school and as per allegation, on the instructions of co- accused Kunwar Kamal, who was B.E.O., he received bribe from the complainant and was arrested red handed by the trap team but admittedly applicant did not make any demand of bribe. 14. Further, the purpose for which bribe was given by the complainant, applicant was not authorized for that and authority for the same was vested with co-accused Kunwar Kamal, who was concerned B.E.O. 15. Further, however, apart from the present case earlier also applicant has been made accused in another case but in that case final report has been submitted. 16. Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 28.02.2025 i.e. for last more than four months. 17. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should be dismissed for punitive purpose. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant- Sandeep Kumar Gupta 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. 21. 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. 22. 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 :- 15.7.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad