Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142041 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28693 of 2024 Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Cbi Counsel for Applicant :- Lovekush Kumar Mishra,Raghvendra Singh,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rahul Srivastava,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for C.B.I. for the State- respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime/ R.C. No. RC1202024A0010 of 2024, under Sections 120-B IPC & 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- C.B.I., A.C.B., Ghaziabad, District- Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was senior postmaster and as per allegation, he gave charge sheet to the complainant, who was also public servant and for exonerating him from the inquiry he made demand of bribe of Rs. 50,000/- from him through co-accused Rajeev Dubey, the P.R.I. and Bhupendra, the Personal Assistant and after that on 21.06.2024, applicant and co-accused Rajeev Dubey were apprehended by C.B.I. and from the bag of applicant Rs. 20,000/- bribe money was recovered but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false. 4. He further submitted that from the post trap memorandum, which has been filed by C.B.I. along with the counter affidavit dated 29.08.2024, it reflects, C.B.I. made audio recording of the conversation made between applicant and complainant and from the conversation, it could not be reflected that applicant made any demand of bribe from the complainant rather it reflects, applicant was denying even to make conversation with the complainant. He further submitted that from the post trap memorandum, it also reflects that bribe money was not accepted by the applicant and the same was accepted by accused Rajeev Dubey, the P.R.I.. He further submitted that however, as per C.B.I., bribe money of Rs. 20,000/- were recovered from the bag of the applicant but merely on this basis, it cannot be that applicant made demand of bribe and accepted the same as admittedly the bribe money was put in his bag by co-accused Rajeev Dubey. 5. He further submitted that charge sheet against the applicant has been filed for the offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act and for the offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act demand and acceptance of bribe both are necessary. 6. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 21.06.2024 i.e. for last more than a year. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was principal accused, who through co-accused Rajeev Dubey made demand of bribe and thereafter through co-accused accepted the bribe but could not dispute the fact that from the conversation recorded by the C.B.I., neither it could be reflected that applicant made demand of bribe nor he accepted the same. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter for last more than a year. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. Applicant was senior postmaster and as per allegation, he made demand of bribe from the complainant, who was also a public servant, to exonerate him from the inquiry, which was pending against him through co-accused Rajeev Dubey, the P.R.I. and Bhupendra, the Personal Assistant and on 21.06.2024, he was apprehended along with co-accused Rajeev Dubey and bribe money of Rs. 20,000/- was recovered from his bag but from the post trap memorandum, which has been filed along with counter affidavit filed by C.B.I. it could not be reflected that either applicant made any demand of bribe from the complainant or he accepted the same from him and post trap memorandum shows that bribe money was put in the bag of applicant by co-accused Rajeev Dubey. 10. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 21.06.2024 i.e. for last more than a year. 11. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose. 12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant- Devendra 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 :- 19.8.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad