Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117632 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24862 of 2025 Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.53 of 2025, Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut changed to Case Crime No. 07 of 2025, under Section 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018, Police Station Anti-Corruption, District Meerut during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is Peon/Orderly in the office of Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Adhikari, Meerut and as per allegation for registration to run Clinic from the complainant, who was Ayurvedic Doctor co- accused Shiv Kumar Pundir, the Clerk made a demand of bribe of Rs.Five Thousand from him and thereafter on the instruction of co-accused Shiv Kumar Pundir, applicant received bribe from him and was apprehended red handed by Trap Team but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false. 4. He further submits that applicant is a petty Peon/Orderly and he was not having any authority to give permission of registration to the complainant. 5. He further submits that even admittedly demand of bribe has not been made by applicant and the same was made by co-accused Shiv Kumar Pundir, who was Clerk and co-accused Shiv Kumar Pundir has already been released on bail by this Court and his bail order has been annexed at page 128 of the paper book. 6. He further submtis that maximum punishment provided under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and applicant is in jail since 10.3.2025, i.e., for the last more than four months. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was apprehended red handed by Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. Five Thousand from the complainant but he could not dispute the fact that applicant has been challaned for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and there is no allegation that he also made demand of bribe. 8. Learned AGA further could not dispute that co-accused Shiv Kumar Pundir made demand of bribe and he has already been released on bail by this Court. 9. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed and applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit and he is in jail for the last more than four months and maximum punishment provided under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, as per allegation applicant was apprehended red handed by Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. Five Thousand from the complainant but it reflects that demand of bribe has not been made by applicant and the same was made by co-accused Shiv Kumar Pundir, who was clerk in the alleged office and co-accused Shiv Kumar Pundir has already been released on bail by this Court. 12. Further, applicant has been challaned for offence under Section 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act and for offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act demand of bribe and its acceptance both are necessary(See. Soundarajan Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anti-Corruption, Dindigul) (2023)16 Supreme Court Cases 141). 13. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 10.3.2025, i.e., for the last more than four months and the investigation of the case has already been completed and for the alleged offence maximum punishment is seven years and charge sheet has been filed. 14. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant-Suresh 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 :- 21.7.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad