Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140875 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24955 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt Pinki Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ahsan Ahmad,Daya Ram Yadav,Monu Panchal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2. The instant second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 316 of 2023, under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Dilari, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 3. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.04.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 307 of 2024. 4. Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that on 19.10.2024, examination- in-chief of complainant-Hashmat Ali had been recorded in part as PW-1 before the trial Court, thereafter remaining examination-in-chief of PW-1 was recorded on 07.12.2024, in which he supported the prosecution case, but when he was cross- examined by the defence, he had given some contradictory statement regarding manner of giving bribe to the applicant, hence, the prosecution case is doubtful and the chance of conviction of applicant is bleak, therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the applicant 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 the complainant had made a complaint on 17.11.2023 and his examination-in-chief in part was recorded on 19.10.2024. Thereafter his remaining examination-in- chief was recorded on 07.12.2024 after a gap of 01 month and 19 days, in which he supported the prosecution case. Thereafter cross-examination of the complainant was done, in which minor contradictions had come, which did not have any bearing on the merit of the case, therefore he was not declared hostile. It is also pointed out that other prosecution witnesses who are government officials have been examined and they have also support the prosecution case, therefore, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that complainant in his examination-in-chief has stated inter-alia that on the demand of bribe by the applicant, he took out the treated notes from the right pocket of kurta, which he was wearing and gave it in the hand of the applicant, whereas he, in his cross-examination, has stated inter-alia that if it is written in the report that I had given ten notes of Rs. 500/- each to the applicant and she was arrested while counting, then that is wrong. I did not give money to the applicant nor did she counted it. As such prima facie, there is contradiction about giving bribe money in the hand of the applicant. This Court also finds that after statement of complainant before the trial Court, there is no possibility of tampering the evidence and prosecution witnesses. 7. In view of the above, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 20.11.2023 has made out a case for bail. 8. Accordingly, bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let the applicant-Smt Pinki Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after her release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned. 10. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail. 11. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad