Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145584 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28970 of 2025 Applicant :- Seva Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amarnath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I, 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.11 of 2025, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti Corruption, Varanasi, District Varanasi during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR of the present case was lodged on 01.7.2025 against the applicant under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act and as per allegation applicant was Peon in a Government Hospital and he made demand of bribe from the complainant to clear his bills and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by Trap Team on 30.6.2025 at 2.25 PM in the afternoon while he was receiving bribe of Rs.4500/- from the complainant but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. 4. He further submits that applicant was petty Peon in the Government Hospital and he was not having any authority to clear the dues of the complainant and therefore, there was no occasion for the complainant to give bribe to him. 5. He further submits that even from the FIR it reflects that after the arrest applicant was taken to the Police Station after washing his hands and at the Police Station recovery memo and other documents related to trap were prepared and this fact casts serious doubt on the prosecution case. 6. He further submits that from the FIR it also reflects that the alleged trap was taken place on 30.6.2025 at about 14.25 hours but surprisingly FIR was lodged next day on 01.7.2025 at 9.31 hours, i.e., after about 19 hours and this fact again strengthen the case of the applicant that entire trap proceeding is false. 7. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 30.6.2025, i.e., for almost two months. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was Peon in Government Hospital and he was public servant and he was also arrested red handed by Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs.4500/- from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that applicant was petty Peon and he was not having any authority to clear the alleged dues of the complainant. 9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects that after washing hands of the applicant at spot where trap was made he was taken to the Police Station and thereafter at Police Station recovery memo and other documents relating to trap were prepared. 10. He further could not dispute the fact that although from the FIR it reflects that trap was made on 30.6.2025 at about 14.25 hours but FIR was lodged on 01.7.2025, i.e., next day at 9.31 hours, i.e, after about 19 hours. 11. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. However, applicant was Peon in a Government Hospital and as per allegation he made demand of bribe from the complainant to clear his dues and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 4500/- from him and he is in jail only since 30.6.2025, i.e., for almost two months but from the FIR it reflects that after alleged trap applicant was taken to the Police Station and at Police Station recovery memo and other documents were prepared. Not only this, FIR further suggests that the alleged trap was made on 30.6.2025 at about 14.25 hours but the FIR of the present case was lodged BAIL No. 28970 of 2025 2 on 01.7.2025, i.e., next day at 9.31 hours, i.e., after about 19 hours. Considering these facts, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that these facts cast serious doubt on the alleged trap. 14. Further, even being Peon, applicant was not having any authority to clear the alleged dues of the complainant. 15. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history. 16. 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. 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-Seva Lal 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 BAIL No. 28970 of 2025 3 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 :- 23.8.2025 SKM BAIL No. 28970 of 2025 4 Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad