Kishore Kumar Chaturvedi vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32772 of 2025

Kishore Kumar Chaturvedi

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devesh Kumar Sharma, Pranav Tiwary, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 73

¶5

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pranav Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA, 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.0007 of 2025, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, Police Station Anti Corruption Agra, District Agra( earlier numbered as Zero FIR NO. 001 of 2025 under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura) during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was Clerk in the Forest Department and as per allegation to issue mandatory NOC to the brother-in-law of the complainant for running a Petrol Pump, he although made demand of Rs. Two Lacs as bribe but subsequently he agreed for Rs.Fifty Thousand and thereafter he was allegedly apprehended by Trap Team but entire allegation levelled against the applicant are totally false.

¶9

He further submits that from the FIR it reflects that complainant moved complaint against the applicant on 8.7.2025 that for NOC he is making demand of bribe from him but way back on 10.7.2024 NOC had already been issued and specific averments have been made by applicant in this regard in paragraphs no.13 and 14 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

¶10

BAIL No. 32772 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

He further submits that from the perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the State it reflects that averments made by applicant in paragraphs no.13 and 14 of the affidavit have not been denied by the State.

¶13

He further submits that even being petty Clerk applicant was not authorized to issue NOC in favour of the brother-in-law of the complainant and above facts clearly suggests that there was absolutely no occasion for the applicant to make even demand of bribe.

¶14

He further submits that even from the FIR itself it reflects that after the alleged trap applicant has taken to the Police Station and at Police Station his hands were washed and at Police Station alleged recovery memo was prepared and recovered money was seized and these facts cast serious doubts on the entire prosecution case.

¶15

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and investigation of the case has been completed and he is in jail in the present matter since 11.7.2025, i.e., for the last more than three months.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant was dishonest public servant and he firstly made demand of bribe from the complainant and thereafter he received bribe money from him but could not dispute the fact that as per complainant, applicant was asking bribe to issue NOC for the purpose to run Petrol Pump but as per averments made in paragraphs no.13 and 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application the alleged NOC has already been issued way back on 10.7.2024, i.e., about a year before and this fact has not been denied by the State in the counter affidavit.

¶17

Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that from the FIR it reflects that immediately after the alleged trap applicant was taken to the Police Station and at Police Station his hands were washed and even alleged bribe money was also seized at this place. He further could not dispute the fact that at Police Station recovery memo was prepared.

¶18

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

¶19

BAIL No. 32772 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

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

¶22

However, it reflects that complainant moved an application against the applicant in July, 2025 with the allegation that applicant was posted as Clerk in the Forest Department and to issue NOC to him he made demand of bribe of Rs. Two Lacs and subsequently he agreed for Rs. Fifty Thousand but it reflects that applicant in paragraph-13 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant application made a specific averment that NOC has already been issued by the Department on 10.7.2024, i.e., about a year before and this averment has not been denied by the State in the counter affidavit.

¶23

Further, even from the FIR of the present case it reflects that immediately after the alleged trap applicant was taken to the Police Station and at Police Station his hands were washed and even at the Police Station alleged recovered bribe money was seized. Record also suggests that even at Police Station recovery memo was prepared. Considering these facts the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that these facts cast serious doubt on the entire trap, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

¶24

Further, investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and he is in jail since 11.7.2025, i.e.,for the last more than three months.

¶25

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 either for punitive or preventive purposes.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Let the applicant- Kishore Kumar Chaturvedi be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in

¶29

BAIL No. 32772 of 2025

¶30

4

¶31

the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶32

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

¶33

(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.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶38

November 6, 2025 SKM

¶39

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

Kishore Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Kumar Chaturvedi 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

Arman vs State of U.P.

Naresh Pratap Singh vs State of U.P.

Rampher and 3 Others vs State of U.P.. and Another

Amar Singh vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Agrawal vs State of U.P.

Ravi Kumar vs State of U.P.