Deependra Sharma Vs State of U.P.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2025, under Sections 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Anti Corruption, Meerut, District- Meerut (earlier case crime no. 138 of 2025 Police Station-Hapur Dehat), during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per allegation, applicant was Clerk in the office of B.S.A. and he made demand of bribe through co-accused Nikhil Sharma from the complainant for renewal of recognition of school of the complainant, in which, he was Principal and thereafter complainant gave bribe of Rs. 70,000/- to co-accused Nikhil Sharma on his instigation and thereafter applicant and co-accused Nikhil Sharma were apprehended by trap team but entire allegations lavelled against the applicant are totally false.

¶15

He further submitted that even from the FIR, it reflects, applicant neither directly made any demand of bribe from the complainant nor he received any bribe from him and from the FIR, it reflects, demand of bribe was made by co-accused Nikhil Sharma and he received the bribe from complainant.

¶16

He further submitted that co-accused Nikhil Sharma has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27500 of 2025.

¶17

BAIL No. 27614 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

He further submitted that even being petty Clerk in the office of B.S.A., applicant was not having any authority to renew recognition of school and the authority was vested with B.S.A.

¶20

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 30.04.2025 i.e. for last almost 5 months.

¶21

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant appears to principal accused and on his instigation co-accused Nikhil Sharma made demand of bribe from the complainant and received the bribe money from him but could not dispute the fact that from the record, it could not be reflected that applicant directly made demand of bribe from the complainant and received the bribe money himself from the complainant.

¶22

He further could not dispute the fact that being petty clerk in the office of B.S.A., applicant was not having any authority to renew the recognition of school of the complainant.

¶23

He further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Nikhil Sharma has already been released on bail by this Court. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter for last almost 5 months.

¶24

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶25

However, as per allegation, applicant was posted as Clerk in the office of B.S.A. and he made demand of bribe through co-accused Nikhil Sharma from the complainant to renew the recognition of his school and thereafter co-accused Nikhil Sharma was apprehended red handed by the trap team while he was receiving bribe of Rs. 70,000/- from him but it reflects, applicant neither directly made demand of bribe from the complainant nor he received the bribe money.

¶26

Further, co-accused Nikhil Sharma, who, as per allegation, made demand of bribe from the complainant and received the bribe money from him, has already been released on bail by this Court.

¶27

Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that being petty Clerk in the office of B.S.A. applicant was not having any authority to renew the recognition of school of

¶28

BAIL No. 27614 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

the complainant and the authority was vested with B.S.A.

¶31

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter for last almost five months.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Let the applicant- Deependra Sharma 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:-

¶36

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

¶37

(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.

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

September 17, 2025 KK Patel

¶42

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶43

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deependra Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deependra Sharma 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