Anant Mohan Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Yavar Muktar Advocate holding brief of Sri Satyaveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the Staterespondent.

¶11

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 5 of 2025, under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is cashier in PWD, Allahabad and as per allegation for clearing bill of the father of the complainant he made demand of bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from him and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe money but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

¶13

He further submitted that from the FIR it reflects that applicant was apprehended red handed by the trap team on 14.5.2025 at 12:15 in the afternoon but FIR of the present case was lodged on 14.5.2025 at 00:00 hours in the night, therefore, FIR has been lodged after 12 hours and this inordinate delay in lodging the FIR suggests that entire trap proceeding is false and after taking the applicant at police station a false FIR has been lodged.

¶14

He further submitted that even from the FIR it reflects that after the alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared and this fact again casts serious doubt on the trap proceeding.

¶15

He next submitted that even being cashier applicant was not authorized to withheld

¶16

BAIL No. 23618 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

the payment of the complainant and his duty only to comply the order passed by his senior officer and this fact again suggests that on the basis of false allegation complainant implicated him in the present matter.

¶19

He further submitted that investigation of the case has already been completed and charge sheet has already been filed.

¶20

He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 14.5.2025 i.e. for last almost four months.

¶21

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was public servant and he not only made demand of bribe but he was also apprehended by the trap team while he was receiving bribe money from the complainant but he could not dispute the fact that there is delay of 12 hours in lodging the FIR of the present case.

¶22

He further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR and the recovery memo of the alleged trap it reflects that it has not been prepared at spot and same was prepared at police station after taking the applicant at police station.

¶23

He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has already been completed and chargesheet has already been filed and applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

¶24

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

¶25

However, as per allegation applicant was cashier in PWD and he made demand of bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant to clear the bill of his father and thereafter, applicant was arrested red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe money but it reflects there is delay of 12 hours in the lodgement of the FIR and there is no explanation in this regard.

¶26

Further, from the FIR it reflects after alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station and at police station his recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared.

¶27

Considering the above, facts, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that entire trap is false and baseless and above facts casts serious doubt on the trap proceeding cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

¶28

Further, investigation of the case has already concluded and charge sheet has been filed and applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter, applicant is jail for last four months.

¶29

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 purposes.

¶30

BAIL No. 23618 of 2025

¶31

3

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Let the applicant- Anant Mohan Shukla, 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:-

¶35

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

¶36

(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.

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

September 9, 2025

¶41

Ankita

¶42

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶43

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anant Mohan Shukla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Mohan Shukla 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