Anuj Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134262

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27478 of 2025

Applicant :- Anuj Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.01 of 2025 of Police Station Nakud, District Saharanpur (transferred and registered as Case Crime No. 05 of 2025, under Sections 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Anti Corruption, Saharanpur, District ACO U.P. during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was posted as Lekhpal and as per allegation complainant moved an application against him on 6.5.2025 with the allegation that for mutation of his name over the property in question he was making demand of bribe from him and on his application on 8.5.2025 applicant was arrested red handed while he was receiving bribe of Rs.Five Thousand but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

¶9

He further submits that complainant moved an application for mutation of his name before SDM concerned on 6.5.2025 which was marked by SDM concerned to Naib Tehsildar and on the same day, i.e., on 6.5.2025 complainant moved application against the applicant that he was making demand of bribe from him and this

¶10

fact clearly suggests that application dated 6.5.2025 moved by complainant is based on false facts.

¶11

He further submits that even from application dated 6.5.2025 moved by complainant, which has been annexed at page 153 of the paper book, it reflects that the same was never marked to applicant and the same was marked to Naib Tehsildasr and admittedly applicant was Lekhpal and, therefore, there was absolutely no occasion either for the applicant to make demand of bribe or for the complainant to give bribe to him.

¶12

He next submits that actually applicant being Lekhpal submitted a report against the grandfather of the complainant in a case related to illegal encroachment and only due to this reason complainant implicated the applicant in the present matter with the connivance of Trap Team.

¶13

He further submits that till the alleged date of trap the service record of the applicant was unblemished and apart from the present case applicant is not having any previous criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶14

He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 8.5.2025, i.e, for the last three months.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was Lekhpal and being public servant he misused his position and he firstly made demand of bribe from the complainant and subsequently he was apprehended red handed while he was receiving Rs. Five Thousand from him but he could not dispute the fact that on the basis of the application dated 6.5.2025 moved by complainant applicant was arrested on 8.5.2025 and as per complainant, for mutation of his name over the property in question, applicant was asking bribe but

¶16

application for mutation was moved by him on 6.5.2025 and on the same day he moved application against the applicant.

¶17

Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the application moved by complainant dated 6.5.2025, it reflects that the same was marked to Naib Tehsildar and it was not marked to applicant, who was Lekhpal.

¶18

He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and the investigation of the case has been concluded and applicant is in jail for the last three months.

¶19

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

¶20

However, as per allegation, applicant was Lekhpal and he made demand of bribe from the complainant for mutation of his name over the property in question and subsequently he was arrested red handed by Trap Team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. Five Thousand from him but it reflects that trap proceeding was conducted on the application moved by complainant dated 6.5.2025 and on the same day he moved an application for mutation. Considering this fact the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that entire allegation levelled against the applicant prima facie appears to be false cannot be ruled out at this stage.

¶21

Further, even from the application for mutation dated 6.5.2025 moved by complainant it reflects that same was marked by SDM concerned to Naib Tehsildsar concerned and application was never marked to applicant, who was Lekhpal.

¶22

Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should

¶23

not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

¶24

16.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- Anuj Pratap Singh 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 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.

¶32

Order Date :- 8.8.2025/SKM

¶33

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

Anuj Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Pratap Singh 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