Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23607 of 2025

Vinod Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anuj Srivastava, Satyaveer Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 82

¶6

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Satyaveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 04 of 2025, under Sections 7 and 12 P.C. Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Mirzapur during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Junior Engineer in Industrial Development Authority, Bhadohi and as per allegation to approve the map he made demand of bribe and thereafter bribe money on his instructions was handed over to co-accused Amit Kumar and after that the alleged bribe money was recovered from the drawer of the table but entire allegation leveled against the applicant is totally false.

¶10

He further submits, even from the FIR it could not be reflected that applicant accepted the bribe money and neither bribe money was recovered from the possession of applicant.

¶11

He further submits, from the FIR it reflects, after the alleged trap although hands of the applicant were washed at the spot but thereafter applicant and complainant have taken to the police station and at police station hands of the complainant were washed and thereafter recovery memo was prepared and this fact casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.

¶12

He further submits, investigation of the case has been completed and

¶13

BAIL No. 23607 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 10.06.2025 i.e. for last more than three months.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant was public servant and he made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter on his instructions complainant handed over the bribe money to co-accused Amit Kumar which was recovered from the drawer of the table of the office of applicant and therefore it cannot be said that applicant did not accept the bribe money but could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects, after the alleged trap however hands of the applicant were washed at spot but hands of the complainant were washed at police station and at police station recovery memo was prepared.

¶17

Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 10.06.2025 i.e. for last more than three months.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶19

Applicant was posted as Junior Engineer in Industrial Development Authority, Bhadohi and as per allegation he made demand of bribe from complainant for approval of map and thereafter he was apprehended along with co-accused Amit Kumar and bribe money was recovered from the Drawer of office but it reflects, after alleged trap however hands of the applicant were washed at spot but thereafter applicant and complainant have taken to the police station and at police station hands of the complainant were washed and at police station recovery memo was prepared. Considering these facts, prima facie this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that the entire trap proceedings become doubtful.

¶20

Further, even as per prosecution applicant himself did not accept the bribe money and after counting the money on his instructions, the same was handed over to the co-accused Amit Kumar, who put the bribe money in the drawer of the table.

¶21

Further, investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since

¶22

BAIL No. 23607 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

10.06.2025 i.e. for last more than three months.

¶25

Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose.

¶26

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶28

Let the applicant - Vinod 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:-

¶29

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

September 24, 2025 AK Pandey

¶35

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kishore Kumar Chaturvedi vs State of U.P.

Amar Singh vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Agrawal vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Lokendra Kumar Rathi vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Jayprakash Singh vs State of U.P.