HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27899 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by the State and rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.04 of 2025, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti Corruption Basti, District Basti, during pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was Kanoongo and as per allegation, for measurement of the land of the complainant, he made demand of bribe of Rs.5,000/- from him and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team on 27th June, 2025 at about 18:24 Hrs. while he was receiving bribe from him but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 5. He next submits that the alleged trap is said to have taken place on 27th June, 2025 at 6:24 P.M. in the evening but FIR of the present case was lodged on 28th June, 2025 at 9:19 Hrs. i.e. after 15 hours and this delay in lodging the FIR clearly suggests that entire prosecution case is based on false and fictitious facts. 6. He further submits that prosecution could not provide any explanation with regard to delay in lodging the FIR of the present case. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Singh, Shivam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sunil Kumar Srivastav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. He further submits that punishment for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and investigation of the case has already been concluded. 8. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 28th June, 2025 i.e. for last more than two months. 9. Per contra; learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was Kanoongo and being public servant, he not only made demand of bribe but he was also apprehended red handed by the trap team but could not dispute the fact after the alleged trap, FIR could only be lodged after 15 hours. 10. He further could not dispute the fact that punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and investigation of the case has already been concluded. 11. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 28th June, 2025 i.e. for last more than two months. 12. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case . 13. However, as per allegation being Kanoongo, applicant made demand of bribe from the complainant for measurement of his land and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs.5,000/- from him but it reflects, the alleged trap was made on 27th June , 2025 at 18:24 Hrs. in the evening and the FIR of the present case was lodged next day i.e. on 28th June, 2025 at 9:19 Hrs. in the morning i.e. after 15 hours and therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR of the present case and from perusal of the FIR and even from the counter affidavit filed by the State, it could not be reflected that the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained. 14. Further, punishment provided for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is seven years and investigation of the case has already been concluded. 15. Further, applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 28th June, 2025 i.e. for last more than two BAIL No. 27899 of 2025 2 months. 16. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and his bail application should not be dismissed either for preventive or for punitive purpose. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant- Sunil Kumar Srivastav, 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. September 4, 2025 Zafar BAIL No. 27899 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad