Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139390 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20119 of 2025 Applicant :- Puspendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kesari,Vindeshwari Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant and counter affidavit filed by the State-respondent are taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Vindeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State- respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.08 of 2025, under Sections 7, 7-Ka, 12 Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Anti Corruption, Moradabad, District Unit Moradabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was Lineman on contractual basis in Electricity Department and as per allegation, there was electricity connection in the name of the mother of the complainant and as electricity bill was in excess, therefore, complainant when met with co-accused Sri Ratnesh Kumar, Junior Engineer then he told him to met with applicant and thereafter applicant made demand of bribe of Rs.45,000/- from him and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe from the complainant but entire allegations made against applicant are totally false. 5. He further submits that being Lineman, applicant was not having authority to reduce the amount of electricity bill of the house of the mother of the complainant and the authority was vested with higher authorities. 6. He further submits that even from the FIR, it reflects that co- accused Sri Ratnesh Kumar, Junior Engineer was the principal accused and he wanted to take bribe through the applicant and being Lineman, applicant has been made scapegoat in the present matter. 7. He further submits that even from the record, it reflects that there was dispute of about Rs.54,000/- and as per allegation, applicant made demand of bribe of Rs.45,000/-, which is highly improbable as if there was dispute of about Rs.54,000/- then it was not probable for complainant to give bribe of Rs.45,000/- to the applicant. 8. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.03.2025 i.e. for last more than five months. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case of trap and applicant not only made demand of bribe of Rs.45,000/- from the complaint but he was also apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that being Lineman, applicant was not having authority to reduce the amount of electricity bill of the complainant and the authority for the same was vested with J.E. and S.D.O. concerned. He also could not dispute, even from the FIR, it reflects that co-accused Sri Ratnesh Kumar, Junior Engineer wanted to take bribe through the applicant. 10. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.03.2025 i.e. for last more than five months. 11. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, as per allegation applicant not only made demand of bribe of Rs.45,000/- from the complaint but he was also apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe from the complainant but it reflects, he was Lineman on contractual basis and co-accused Sri Ratnesh Kumar, Junior Engineer appears to be principal accused in the present matter, who wanted to take bribe through the applicant. 13. Further, demand of bribe was being made with regard to reduce the amount of excess electricity bill but being being Lineman, applicant was not having authority to reduce the amount of excess electricity bill of the complainant and such authority was vested with J.E. and S.D.O. concerned. 14. Further, investigation of the case has already been concluded and charge-sheet has been filed in the present matter. 15. Further, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.03.2025 i.e. for last more than five months. 16. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant- Puspendra Singh 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. 20. 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. 21. 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 :- 14.8.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad