HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23426 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughna 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. 04 of 2025, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Anti Corruption Azamgarh, District- A.C.O., U.P., during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Lekhpal and as per allegation, complainant moved an application on 29.04.2025 for the purpose of removal of encroachment of land and applicant made demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from him for submitting report on his application and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false. 4. He further submitted that even from the FIR, it reflects, earlier several times complainant moved applications against his opponent and on each and every time, applicant submitted his report and, therefore, allegation with regard to demand of bribe and its acceptance against the applicant prima facie appears to be false. 5. He further submitted that from the FIR it also reflects, neither hands of the applicant were washed at the place where trap was made nor recovery memo was prepared at spot and it reflects, after the alleged trap applicant and complainant have been taken 3 Km. away from spot and at this place their hands were washed and thereafter they were taken to police station- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahendra Pratap Singh, Rohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Amar Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Gambhirpur and at the police station recovery memo was prepared and this fact casts serious doubt on the entire trap proceeding. 6. He further submitted that investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 06.06.2025 i.e.for last more than three and half months. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was dishonest public servant and being Lekhpal, he made demand of bribe from the complainant to submit report on his application and he was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe money from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it reflects, after the alleged trap applicant and complainant have been taken 3 Km. away from spot and at this place their hands were washed and thereafter they were taken to the police station-Gambhirpur and at police station recovery memo was prepared. 8. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail for last more than three and half months. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, as per allegation, being Lekhpal, applicant for submitting report made demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team but it reflects, neither hands of the applicant and complainant were washed at the place where trap was made nor recovery memo of the trap was prepared at spot. Record suggests that after the alleged trap firstly applicant and complainant have been taken about 3 Km. away from spot and at this place their hands were washed and thereafter they were taken to police station and at police station recovery memo of the trap has been prepared. Considering this fact, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that entire trap proceedings become doubtful. 11. Further, investigation of the case has already been concluded and applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 06.06.2025 i.e.for last more than three and half months. 12. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to BAIL No. 23426 of 2025 2 be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose. 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant- Amar 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. September 23, 2025 KK Patel BAIL No. 23426 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad