Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123968 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24258 of 2025 Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State- respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2025, under Sections 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Bareilly, District/Unit ACO U.P., during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is private person and as per allegation on the instructions of co- accused Sanjeev who was Lekhpal he received bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from complainant and was arrested red handed by the trap team but entire allegation levelled against applicant is totally false. 4. He further submitted that applicant never received the bribe money on the instructions of co-accused Sanjeev Kumar, the Lekhpal. He further submitted that actually applicant is two wheeler mechanic and co-accused Sanjeev Kumar, Lekhpal got repaired his vehicle from him and on 16.5.2025 he gave bill of Rs. 11,020/- to him and on the date of trap i.e. 21.5.2025 co-accused Sanjeev Kumar, Lekhpal told the applicant that through complainant he is sending Rs. 10,000/- and therefore, he received the money from the complainant and he was not aware that this money was bribe money. He further submitted that the bill submitted by the applicant dated 16.5.2025 has been annexed at page-12 of the paper book. 5. He further submitted that even from the record it reflects that applicant did not make any demand of bribe and same was made by co-accused Sanjeev Kumar, the Lekhpal. 6. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 21.5.2025. i.e for last more than two months. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was apprehended red handed by the trap teem while he was receiving bribe money of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that applicant is not a public servant and he is vehicle mechanic and before trap on 16.5.2025, he submitted a bill to co-accused Sanjeev Kumar, the Lekhpal of Rs. 11,020/- with regard to repairing of his vehicle. 8. He further could not dispute the fact that there is no allegation of demand of bribe against the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. However, applicant was apprehended red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant on the instructions of the co-accused Sanjeev Kumar, the Lekhpal but admittedly, he is private person and he did not make any demand of bribe. 11. Further, from the record it also reflects that applicant is vehicle mechanic and as per applicant before the trap, he repaired the vehicle of the co-accused Sanjeev, the Lekhpal and on 16.5.2025, he submitted repairing bill to him of Rs. 11,020/-. Considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to false implication of the applicant, cannot be ruled out at this stage as defence taken by the applicant cannot be completely ruled out. 12. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 21.5.2025 i.e for last more than two months. 13. 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. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant-Vinod Kumar, 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 :- 28.7.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad