Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139876 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14347 of 2025 Applicant :- Ratnesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Narayan Singh,Ram Bahadur,Ugrasen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ram Bahadur, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0008 of 2025, under Sections 7, 7A, 12 Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of BNS, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Moradabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department and as per allegation made in the FIR when complainant made contact with the applicant with regard to excess bill then applicant told him to meet with lineman co-accused Pushpendra and thereafter co-accused Pushpendra made demand of bribe and he was arrested red handed by the trap team and after his arrest he stated that on the instructions of applicant, he was making demand of bribe but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false. 4. He further submitted that from the complaint made by complainant, it could not be reflected that applicant made any demand of bribe from the complainant and if on his behalf co- accused Pushpendra, the lineman made demand of bribe then applicant cannot be held responsible for it. 5. He further submitted that co-accused Pushpendra, the lineman has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.8.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 20119 of 2025. 6. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.3.2025 i.e. for last more than five months. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that however, co-accused, Pushpendra, the lineman was the person who made demand of bribe and he was the person who was arrested red handed by the trap team but being lineman he was not having any authority to adjust the electricity bill of the complainant and therefore, without any instructions of the applicant, he could not made demand and accept the bribe and therefore, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent. 8. He further submitted that it appears, applicant through co- accused Pushpendra, the lineman accepted the bribe but he could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it could not be reflected that applicant made any demand of bribe directly from the complainant and there is no allegation that he accepted the bribe. 9. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter applicant is in jail for last five months. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, applicant is Junior Engineer in the electricity department and as per allegation, he accepted the bribe through co- accused Pushpendra, the lineman but from the record, it could not be reflected that he either made any demand directly from the complainant or he accepted the bribe from him and from the record, it reflects that co-accused Pushpendra, the lineman was the person who made demand of bribe from the complainant and he was also apprehended red handed by the trap team. 12. Further, co-accused Pushpendra, the lineman has already been released on bail by this Court. 13. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail for last more than five months and investigation of the case has already been completed. 14. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be withheld for punitive purposes. 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- Ratnesh Kumar, 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 :- 18.8.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad