Vivek Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121271

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25378 of 2025

Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Punita Pandey,Shweta Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Ms. Shweta Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.185 of 2024, under Section 7/11/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Bahariya, District Prayagraj during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the Lekhpal and FIR of the present case was lodged against him on 12.12.2024 with the allegation that he made demand of bribe from the complainant and with regard to the receiving of bribe a video is also available on Social Media but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.

¶10

She further submits that as per the statement of the complainant Raj Bahadur Patel recorded during investigation which has been annexed along with the instant bail application, he gave bribe to the applicant in the month of May, 2023 but FIR of the present case was lodged by him on 12.12.2024, i.e., after one and half year and, therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR of the present case and complainant did not give any explanation in

¶11

this regard.

¶12

She further submits that even genuineness of the alleged video which was available on social media is still to be proved and the same can only be proved during trial.

¶13

She further submits that actually complainant wanted that applicant illegally submit report in his favour and when applicant refused to do so then he implicated him in the present matter on the basis of false allegation of receiving bribe.

¶14

She further submits that, however, apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to minor offence and in that case after investigation final report has been submitted.

¶15

She further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 6.5.2025, i.e., for the last more than two and half months.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

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

¶18

However, from the FIR it reflects that it is based on alleged video in which applicant was accepting bribe from the complainant but FIR of the present case was lodged after one and half years.

¶19

Further, genuineness of the alleged video is still to be proved and this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that genuineness of the video can only be properly analysed by the trial court.

¶20

Further, however, applicant was also made accused in another

¶21

case but in that case after investigation final report has been submitted.

¶22

Further, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 6.5.2025, i.e., for the last more than two and half months.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Let the applicant- Vivek Kumar Yadav 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:-

¶27

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

¶28

(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.

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to

¶32

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.

¶33

Order Date :- 24.7.2025 SKM

¶34

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vivek Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Yadav 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