Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42235 of 2025

Rajesh Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Anis Kumar Gautam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.
Court No.- 73

¶5

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anis Kumar Gautam, 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.08 of 2025, under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Azamgarh, District Azamgarh(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 to submit report in a case pending before SDM concerned he initially made demand of bribe of Rs. Twenty Five Thousand from the complainant but subsequently agreed to accept Rs. Five Thousand and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by Trap Team but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

¶9

He further submits that even from the FIR it reflects that however, allegedly applicant was apprehended from his official residence and alleged bribe money was also recovered from his possession but surprisingly alleged bribe money was not seized at spot and after the alleged trap applicant was taken to Police Station and at Police Station alleged recovered bribe was sealed. He next submits that even it also reflects that at Police Station the recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared and these facts cast serious doubt on the entire trap proceedings.

¶10

BAIL No. 42235 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and investigation of the case has been completed and in the present matter he is in jail since 3.9.2025, i.e., for almost three months.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is dishonest public servant and firstly he made demand of bribe and subsequently he received bribe money from the complainant and even bribe money was also recovered from his possession but he could not dispute the fact that neither alleged bribe money has been seized at spot where the alleged trap was made nor recovery memo of alleged trap was prepared there and both the formalities were completed in the Police Station.

¶14

Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and investigation of the case has been completed and in the present matter he is in jail for the last more than three months.

¶15

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

¶16

As per allegation applicant was posted as Lekhpal and to submit his report in a case pending before the SDM concerned he initially made a demand of Rs. Five Thousand from the complainant but later on he agreed to accept Rs. Twenty Five Thousand and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by Trap Team from his official residence and even bribe money of Rs. Five Thousand were also recovered from his possession but record suggests that after the alleged trap applicant was taken to Police Station and at Police Station the alleged recovered bribe money was seized and sealed and at Police Station recovery memo of the alleged trap was prepared. Considering this fact this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that these facts cast serious doubt on the entire trap proceeding.

¶17

Further, 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 for almost three months.

¶18

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

¶19

BAIL No. 42235 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

either for punitive or preventive purposes.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Let the applicant- Rajesh 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:-

¶25

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

¶26

(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.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶31

December 1, 2025 SKM

¶32

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

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Similar cases

Ravi Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju @ Istekhar Ahmad vs State of U.P.

Achchelal Chaurasiya @ Bachcha vs State of U.P.

Suresh Prakash Gautam vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kashyap vs State of Up and Another

Smt Brajesh vs State of U.P. and Another