Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145444 Court No. - 82 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27500 of 2025 Applicant :- Munna Lal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Yadav,Parmeshwar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned counsel for the State. 2. By way of instant application applicant made following prayer-: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application under section 528 B.N.S.S. 2023 and set aside the order dated 02.06.2025 passed on discharge application of applicant, and quash the entire proceeding of Session Trial No. 1833 of 2024 (State Versus Munna Lal Yadav and another), in Case Crime No. 12 of 2024, Under Section 7. 13(1)(b) and 13(2) Anti Corruption Act. Police Station Anticorruption Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge, (Anti Corruption Act.), Court No.5 Gorakhpur. It is further prayed that further proceedings of Session Trial No. 1833 of 2024 (State Versus Munna Lal Yadav), in Case Crime No. 12 of 2024, Under Section 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) Anti Corruption Act. Police Station Anticorruption Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Special Judge, (Anti Corruption Act.). Court No.5 Gorakhpur may be stayed by this Hon'ble court during pendency of this of this application, otherwise the Applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter and without any cogent evidence, charge sheet has been filed against him and when he filed discharge application then his discharge application has also been dismissed by the court concerned vide order dated 02.06.2025. 4. He further submitted that however, as per allegation, applicant was Lekhpal and he made demand of bribe from the complainant to submit report on the application moved by him for conversion of his land under Section 80 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code and thereafter he was also arrested by the trap team along with co-accused Anil Kasaudhan but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false. 5. He further submitted that from the record, it reflects, alleged bribe money was neither accepted by the applicant nor it was recovered from his possession and admittedly the same was accepted by co-accused Anil Kasaudhan and the same was also recovered from his possesson. 6. He further submitted that actually complainant filed an application on 10.7.2024 before S.D.M. concerned under Section 80 U.P. Revenue Code and on his application report was called from several authorities including applicant and on 21.9.2024 applicant had already submitted his report to S.D.M. concerned and thereafter on 24.9.2024 after considering report of the applicant, application moved by complainant has been dismissed by S.D.M. concerned but in the meantime on 19.9.2024 complainant filed a complaint against the applicant and thereafter applicant was arrested by the trap team on 3.10.2024. 7. He further submitted that entire facts of the case clearly suggest that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter as there was neither any occasion for the applicant to make any demand of bribe nor complainant was not having any occasion to give bribe to him. He further submitted that while dismissing the discharge application of the applicant, court concern did not consider this aspect and committed gross illegality. He further submitted that even there are several irregularities in the trap proceeding and while dismissing the discharge application of applicant, court concerned also did not consider these facts and in routine manner, his discharge application has been dismissed. 8. He further submitted that, therefore, impugned order dated 02.06.2025 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant has been arrested red handed by the trap team along with co-accused Anil Kasaudhan and he was the person, who made demand of bribe and through co-accused Anil Kasaudhan, he received the bribe and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence of acceptance of bribe against the applicant. 10. He further submitted that it is a case of trap and at this stage, entire trap proceeding cannot be disbelieved and applicant cannot be discharged and there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 and, therefore, instant application filed by applicant is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed. 11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. Applicant is one of the accused in the present matter and it reflects, charge sheet has been filed against him and co-accused Anil Kasaudhan and NA528 No. 27500 of 2025 2 by way of impugned order dated 02.06.2025 discharge application of the applicant has been dismissed. 13. From the record, it reflects, applicant was public servant (Lekhpal) and he made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team along with co-accused Anil Kasaudhan. Record further suggests that, however, bribe money was accepted by co- accused Anil Kasaudhan and the same was also recovered from his possession but at the time of receiving of bribe money, applicant was also along with him and on his instruction, co-accused received the bribe, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence of acceptance of bribe against the applicant and therefore, from the evidence, it reflects, applicant made demand of bribe and he also accepted the same through co-accused. 14. Further, however, as per learned counsel for the applicant, the purpose for which bribe was made by the applicant, was not in existence on the date of alleged trap but this question of fact can only be properly addressed by trial court during trial and only on this ground entire trap proceeding can not be disbelieved. 15. Law is settled, at the stage of framing of charge, mini trial is not possible and at this stage an accused can only be discharged, if entire evidence against him is accepted as it is then also no offence is made out against him. 16. The Apex Court in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023) 7 SCC 633 in paragraph no. 11 observed that:- "11. The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case in which the Trial Court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately after filing of charge sheet, application for discharge was filed. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2023 trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court." 17. In case at hand, from the entire evidence available on record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. 18. Further, the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 is well reasoned order and after considering entire facts of the case, the same has been passed. 19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed NA528 No. 27500 of 2025 3 above, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 02.06.2025. 20. Accordingly, the instant application is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 KK Patel NA528 No. 27500 of 2025 4 Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad