Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87220 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25606 of 2024 Applicant :- Veer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vidit Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. By means of this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., applicant-Veer Singh, who is involved in Case Crime No. 1036 of 2022, under Sections 7, 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 384, 120B IPC, police station Baghpat, district Baghpat seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a video which was going viral, a first information report was lodged on 06.11.2022 against S.I. Veer Singh (present applicant), Constable Yatendra Kumar, Vishal Jain and other employees, who were posted at that time at police post alleging inter alia that in the said video, the applicant alongwith co-accused were seen demanding Rs. 100/- as entry fee from the vehicles (tractors) passing through the police check post. 4. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. There was no demand of money by the applicant from the tractors' driver as alleged in the first information report. The applicant is not found present in the video which was gong viral and source of alleged video is also not known. There is no forensic report to demonstrate the genuineness of the said video. The voice sample of the applicant has also not been taken and no certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act was obtained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.05.2024, therefore, considering the detention period of the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that it is wrong to say that the applicant is not present in the video. The allegation levelled in the first information report is corroborated from the video. So far as forensic report is concerned, it is pointed out that the said video was sent for forensic examination through 8GB KDM FASTO Pen-drive, which was marked as Q-1 and as per FSL report dated 26.11.2024, the WhatsApp video (duration 1.24 second, file size-13.1 MB) was found in the said pen-drive. In the forensic report, it is also mentioned that since original device from which the said video was made, was not available, hence, it was not possible to give positive opinion about editing/tampering. It is also pointed out that it is specific case of the prosecution that Vineet Kumar had made video of the said incident and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, which is mentioned in CD No. 16. He has also given certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. 6. Here it is relevant to mention that considering the nature of allegation, which is based on a video, this Court vide order dated 21.03.2025 directed the learned A.G.A. for the State to produce the said video in question to have a look. In compliance thereof, today on the matter being taken up, Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. has produced a pen-drive containing video in a sealed cover envelop, which has been opened and displayed in presence of counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, from which facts mentioned in the F.I.R. are corroborated. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant disputes the identity of the police personnel showing in the video, which is a matter of evidence and can be properly adjudicated by the trial court at the appropriate stage in accordance with law. Hence, at this stage, no finding can be recorded by this Court in this regard. 8. Considering the facts of the case and gravity of offence, which is related to the Prevention of Corruption Act, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. 10. However, considering the detention period of the applicant, the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat is directed to ensure the production of all the prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court. 11. On appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court shall record their statements on the same date without granting any adjournment to either of the parties and opportunity to cross-examine them shall also be given to the accused in continuation of examination-in chief of prosecution witnesses. 12. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. 13. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat and concerned trial Court within a week for necessary information and compliance. 14. The pen-drive containing aforesaid video is returned to learned A.G.A. for the State for its transmission to the authority concerned. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad