Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100820 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13944 of 2025 Applicant :- Dinesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajan Mishra, 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. 0001 of 2025, under Sections 13(2), 13(1)(b) and 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti corruption Saharanpur, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant is Assistant Teacher in a Government school and as per allegation complainant Vijay Kumar, who was also teacher in the school claimed salary for the period in which he was in jail from Ms. Princi, the then Block Education Officer and on the instruction of Block Education Officer applicant received Rs. 20,000/- from Vijay Kumar as bribe and he was apprehended red handed but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false. 4. He further submits, being teacher applicant was not having any capacity to release the salary of complainant for the period in which he was in jail and this authority was vested with the Block Education Officer Ms. Princi. 5. He further submits, surprisingly during investigation Block Education Officer has not been made accused rather she was made a witness and from her statement recorded during investigation, which has been annexed along with instant bail application, it reflects, she never instructed the applicant to receive bribe on her behalf and considering all these facts, it is apparent that on the basis of false allegation applicant has been made accused in the present matter. 6. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and till date his service record is clean and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 11.01.2025 i.e. for last six months. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was apprehended red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant Vijay Kumar on the instructions of the then Block Education Officer but he fairly conceded, the Block Education Officer has not been made accused and she was one of the prosecution witness and applicant was not having any authority to release the salary of complainant of the period in which he was in jail. 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 11.01.2025 i.e. for last six months. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. However, as per allegation, applicant is Assistant Teacher in a school and on the instructions of Block Education Officer Ms. Princi he received bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from complainant Vijay Kumar, who was also a teacher in the school for the purpose to release his salary for the period in which he was in jail but surprisingly it is a case in which Block Education Officer has not been made accused rather it appears, she was one of the prosecution witness and from the statement recorded during investigation it reflects, she never instructed the applicant to receive bribe on her behalf. 10. Further, being Assistant Teacher in the school admittedly applicant was not having any authority to release the salary of the complainant and this authority was vested with Block Education Officer. 11. Considering above fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that on the basis of false allegation applicant has been roped in the present matter, cannot be ruled out at this stage. 12. Further, service record of the applicant appears to be clean and apart from the present case applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit. 13. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 11.01.2025 i.e. for last six months. 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. 10. Let the applicant - Dinesh 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 :- 1.7.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad