Rajkumar vs State of U.P.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 001 of 2025, transferred as Case Crime No. 0007 of 2025, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Police Station Piluwa, District Etah, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is Peshkar of SDM and as per allegation before SDM concerned transfer application of the complaint was pending and argument in that case had been completed and to issue order applicant made demand of bribe of Rs. 18,000/- from him and on 23.08.2025 he was apprehended red handed by the trap team but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

¶11

He further submitted that from the order sheet of the above case which has been annexed at page 105 of the paper book it reflects that on 06.08.2025 as none was present, next date has been fixed as 26.08.2025 and on 26.08.2025 arguments were concluded. He next submitted therefore, on 21.08.2025 when the complaint was moved then on that date even no argument could be made and therefore, there was no question for applicant to issue any order and this fact

¶12

BAIL No. 36366 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

shows that on the basis of false allegations applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶15

He further submitted that even from the FIR it reflects after the alleged trap applicant firstly was taken near to over bridge and at this place hands of the applicant and complainant were washed and thereafter applicant was taken to police station and at police station recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared. He further submits these facts caste serious doubt on the trap proceedings.

¶16

He further submitted that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of one another case relating to Section 376 IPC but in that case he has been acquitted.

¶17

He further submitted investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is in jail since 23.08.2025 i.e. for the last more than three months.

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted applicant was public servant and he not only made demand of bribe from the complainant but even bribe money was also recovered from his possession and he was also arrested red handed from the spot but could not dispute the fact that after the alleged trap applicant was firstly taken to nearby over bridge and at that place hands of the applicant and complainant were washed and thereafter they have taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared. He further could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has been completed 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

As per allegation applicant was posted as Peshkar in the court of SDM concerned and a transfer case of complainant was pending in the court in which arguments have been completed and to issue order he made demand of bribe and he was also apprehended red handed and bribe money was also recovered from his possession but from the order sheet of the court concerned it reflects even the arguments could not be opened in the transfer case of the

¶21

BAIL No. 36366 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

complainant till the date of complaint moved by complainant.

¶24

Further, FIR of the present case suggest that after the alleged trap applicant was firstly taken to the nearby over bridge and at this place hands of the applicant and complainant were washed and thereafter they have taken to police station and at police station recovery memo of alleged trap was prepared. Considering this fact the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that these facts prima facie cast serious doubt on the trap proceedings, cannot be ruled out.

¶25

Further however apart from the present case applicant was made accused in a case of rape but in that case he has already been acquitted. Further investigation of the case has been completed and applicant is in jail for the last three months.

¶26

Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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:-

¶30

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

¶31

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶32

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

¶33

BAIL No. 36366 of 2025

¶34

4

¶35

activity.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

November 25, 2025 Nadeem

¶39

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶40

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

Rajkumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar 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

Nadeem Khan vs State of U.P.

Vivek Benara vs Union of India and Another

Akash Kesari vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Kumar Vs Union of India

Rub Nawaz vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Pal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another