Sanjeev Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2025)

Sanjeev Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enlargement on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to: (i) not tampering with prosecution evidence, (ii) not pressurizing prosecution witnesses, (iii) appearing on each and every date fixed by the trial Court; any other condition(s) deemed fit and proper may also be imposed by the trial court/concerned court.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Sanjeev Sharma, booked under F.I.R. no.016/2024 dated 14/11/2024 under Section-7/13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.S. Anti-Corruption, Kanpur, U.P.), deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

Court satisfied the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, having regard to the alleged offence being punishable up to seven years, his custody since 14.11.2024 without any prior criminal history, and the undertaking furnished by him to cooperate in the trial proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed; the applicant is to be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall not pressurize prosecution witnesses, and shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court; any other condition deemed fit may also be imposed by the trial court.

Key takeaways

Clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application allowed — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1544 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 15), decided by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J. on December 8, 2025. Applicant Sanjeev Sharma booked under F.I.R. no.016/2024 dated 14/11/2024 under Section-7/13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Anti-Corruption, Kanpur, U.P., District A.C.O., U.P. Prosecution account: applicant allegedly demanded Rs. 15,000/- from complainant for installation of an electricity meter and was purportedly caught red-handed via trap team constituted on complainant's report. Applicant's counsel contended non-compliance of mandatory provisions under Section 105 BNSS and absence of photographic evidence of the alleged trap operation; offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years; no criminal antecedents; custody since 14.11.2024; charge sheet submitted; undertaking to extend full cooperation in trial. Learned AGA opposed, asserting that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are clearly established. Considering the offence punishable up to seven years, custody since 14.11.2024 without prior criminal history, and the undertaking furnished to cooperate in trial proceedings, the Court satisfied that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail; released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to (i) not tampering with prosecution evidence, (ii) not pressurizing prosecution witnesses, (iii) appearing on each and every date fixed by the trial Court; further conditions may be imposed by the trial court. Clarified: observations confined to present bail application, no bearing on merits of trial.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1544 of 2025

Sanjeev Sharma

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Purnendu Chakravarty, Pradeep Kumar Rai, Praveen Kumar Shukla, Shivanshu Goswami, Vivek Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 15

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

According to the prosecution, the applicant allegedly demanded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant for installation of an electricity meter. Acting upon the complainant’s report, a trap team was constituted, and the applicant was purportedly caught red-handed with the said amount in his possession.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the mandatory provisions under Section 105 BNSS have not been complied with and no photographic evidence of the alleged trap operation has been produced. It is further submitted that the offence in question is punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and has been in custody since 14.11.2024. The charge sheet has already been submitted, and the applicant undertakes to extend full cooperation during the trial.

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the bail plea, asserting that both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are clearly established.

BAIL No. 1544 of 2025

2

Considering that the alleged offence is punishable up to seven years, the applicant has remained in custody since 14.11.2024 without any prior criminal history, and keeping in view the undertaking furnished by him to cooperate in the trial proceedings, this Court is satisfied that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant Sanjeev Sharma, involved in F.I.R. no.016/2024 dated 14/11/2024, Section-7/13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S.-Anti-Corruption, Kanpur, U.P., District-A.C.O., U.P., be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

December 8, 2025

R.C.

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench