Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.285 of 2025 converted Case Crime No.0014 of 2025, under Sections 7/12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 amended Act, 2018, Police Station Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, coverted Police Station Anti Corrupiton Meerut, District A.C.O., U.P.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was posted as a Supervisor in Ghaziabad Development Authority and as per allegation, he along with co-accused Ajit Kumar, the Junior Engineer made a demand of bribe of Rs.2 Lakhs from the complainant for giving permission to him for construction and, thereafter, applicant was apprehended red-handed while he was receiving bribe money of Rs.2 Lakhs from the complainant, but the entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

¶11

He further submits that being a Supervisor, applicant did not have any authority to stop the construction of the complainant and this authority was vested with the Junior Engineer, i.e., co-accused Ajit Kumar and it reflects that accused Ajit Kumar was the principal accused and being his subordinate Supervisor, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶12

He further submits that even from the FIR, it reflects that due to some unfortunate incident occurred in the house of co-accused Ajit Kumar, he could not receive the bribe money from the complainant and it appears that on the instruction of co-accused Ajit Kumar, applicant accepted the bribe money and considering this fact, it cannot be said that the applicant was also involved in the present matter along with co-accused Ajit

¶13

BAIL No. 29920 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Kumar, as he was not in a position to refuse to accept the bribe money after the instructions of his senior, i.e., co-accused Ajit Kumar, the Junior Engineer.

¶16

He further submits that even from the FIR, it reflects that the recovery memo of the alleged trap has not been prepared at the spot and the same was prepared at the police station and this fact casts serious doubt on the entire prosecution case.

¶17

He further submits that the applicant is not having any previous criminal history and the charge sheet in the present matter has been filed and in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last five months.

¶18

Per contra, Learned AGA however opposed the bail application and submits that applicant was a dishonest public servant and he firstly made a demand of bribe from the complainant along with co-accused Ajit Kumar, the Junior Engineer and, thereafter, he was apprehended redhanded while he was receiving bribe money and even bribe money was also recovered from his possession but learned AGA could not dispute the fact that from the FIR, it reflects that the recovery memo of the alleged trap has not been prepared at the spot and the same has been prepared at the Police Station.

¶19

Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is the Supervisor and his immediate senior is Junior Engineer and from the FIR, it reflects that the applicant received bribe money on his instructions. He further could not dispute the fact that the applicant is not having any previous criminal history and the investigation of the case has been completed and in the present matter, the applicant is in jail for last five months.

¶20

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

¶21

Applicant was posted as a Supervisor in the Ghaziabad Development Authority and as per allegation, he and co-accused Ajit Kumar, the Junior Engineer, made a demand of bribe from the complainant for giving permission to him for construction and, thereafter, applicant received bribe money of Rs.2 Lakhs from the complainant and he was apprehended red-handed by the trap team but it appears, recovery memo has not been prepared at the spot and the same was prepared at the Police Station. Considering this fact, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that this fact casts serious doubt on the alleged trap.

¶22

Further, applicant was a Supervisor and co-accused Junior Engineer Ajit Kumar was his senior. Considering this fact, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually co-accused

¶23

BAIL No. 29920 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

Ajit Kumar was the principal accused and applicant on his instructions received the bribe money, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage, especially considering the fact that when applicant was apprehended by the trap team then he also informed this fact to the trap team.

¶26

Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and the investigation of the case has been completed and in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last five months.

¶27

Further, the law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should be rejected for punitive purposes.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Let the applicant - Raj 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:-

¶31

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

¶32

(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.

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶37

November 3, 2025 S.A.

¶38

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj 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

Amar Singh vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P.

Surendra Pal Singh vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Garg vs Union of India

Sandeep @ Bhartu vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Zaved vs State of U.P.