Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135931 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18407 of 2025 Applicant :- Satya Narayan Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Singh,Pawan Kumar Tiwari,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by State and rejoinder affidavit filed by applicant are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sagir Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2025, under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti-Corruption Varanasi, District Varanasi, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is public auditor and as per allegation, he made a demand of bribe of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant to conduct the audit of Gram Panchayat of his mother who was Gram Pradhan and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe from him. 5. He further submitted that entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 6. He further submitted that actually mother of the complainant and complainant himself indulged in misappropriation of public fund and therefore, they wanted that being auditor, applicant submit his report in their favour but applicant when refused to do so then complainant implicated him in the present matter with the connivance of the trap team. 7. He further submitted that even from the FIR it reflects, the recovery memo and other documents related to the alleged trap have not been prepared at the place where the trap was made and they were prepared at police station. 8. He further submitted that even from the record, it could not be reflected that trap proceedings have been recorded through any audio-video electronic means and therefore, trap proceeding has been conducted in violation of mandatory provision of section 105 BNSS. 9. He further submitted that considering the above facts, the entire trap proceedings become doubtful. 10. He further submitted that applicant has been challaned for offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and maximum punishment provided for offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and he is in jail in the present matter since 21.3.2025 i.e. for last five months. 11. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit. 12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant not only made demand of bribe but he was apprehended by the trap team red handed while he was receiving bribe money from the complainant and at this stage, trap proceeding cannot be doubted but he could not dispute the fact that the recovery memo and other documents related to trap have not been prepared at the place where trap was made and the same were prepared at police station. 13. He further could not dispute the fact that videography and photography of the trap proceeding could not be conducted and applicant is not having any previous criminal history and investigation of the case has already been completed and applicant is in jail in the present matter for last five months. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 15. However, as per allegation being public auditor applicant made demand of bribe of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant for conducting audit of account of gram panchayat in which his mother was gram pradhan and he was arrested red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 30,000/- from him but it reflects, recovery memo and other documents related to alleged trap have not been prepared at spot where trap was allegedly made and the same were prepared at police station after taking the applicant there. 16. Further, from the record, it also could not be reflected that the trap proceedings have been recorded either in audio or video through electronic means. 17. Considering the above facts, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that entire trap proceeding become doubtful, cannot be ruled out, at this stage. 18. Further, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and in the present matter, he is in jail for last five months and maximum punishment provided for offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years. 19. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes. 20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 22. Let the applicant-Satya Narayan Tiwari, 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. 23. 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. 24. 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 :- 11.8.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad