Disposed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2025CRLA/4092/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction and seven years' rigorous imprisonment for bribery under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court admitted the appeal and granted bail to the appellant pending appeal on a personal bond with two sureties, without staying the fine.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Raj Kumar released on bail during pendency of appeal on personal bond and two sureties each in like amount; appeal admitted and listed in due course.

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4092 of 2025

Raj Kumar

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pranshu Agrawal Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 27

¶10

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶11

Order on Appeal

¶12

1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶13

2.Admit.

¶14

3.Summon the lower court record.

¶15

Steps be taken within three weeks from today.

¶16

List in due course.

¶17

On order C.M. Application No.01 of 2025 for bail.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State on bail application pending in appeal.

¶19

Criminal Appeal under Sections 415(2) r/w Section 430 B.N.S.S., 2023 [ Old Sections 374(2) Cr.P.C. r/w Section 389 Cr.P.C.] against the Judgment and Order dated 11-12-2025, passed by the Court of Special Judge, P.C. Act, Court No. 3, Lucknow; in Criminal Case No. 2386 /2019, The State of Uttar Pradesh versus Raj Kumar, arising out of F.I.R. / Crime No. 82/2019, U/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station- Ashiyana, District Lucknow; convicting and sentencing the Appellant as under :-

¶20

CRLA No. 4092 of 2025

¶21

¶22

a. Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988302 I.P.C. and in case of default in payment of Fine, three month's additional Simple imprisonment.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that neither Smt. Mamta ( Consumer) nor her husband Babu Lal nor Consumer representative vix. Ram Vilas appeared in the court as witnesses. There is no allegation that the appellant had made oral demand of bribe to the complainant. It is alleged that he made demand through indication.There is no reliable evidence of demand and acceptance against the appellant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. As the bill amount was already adjusted from the security money, there was no occasion for the appellant to demand Rs.10,000/- from the complainant as bribe. The present appeal is new one and it is likely to take considerable time to be heard on merits. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 4 years R.I. and Rs.10,000/- as fine. The appellant has already been in jail custody more than 5 months during trial and he has already in jail custody since the date of conviction dated 11.12.2025. the appellant undertakes that he shall abide by the conditions of bail if he has been given liberty of bail.

¶24

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and submits that the appellant was trapped while receiving Rs. 10,000/- as bribe from the complainant.

¶25

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offenses, nature of allegations, role assigned to the appellant in the offense, nature of evidence led against him , quantum of sentence and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶26

Let the appellant, namely, Raj Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid criminal case number during the pendency of appeal on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶27

On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.

¶28

CRLA No. 4092 of 2025

¶29

¶30

The appellant has undertaken not to indulge into any anti-social activity particularly against the informant and in the event of any such incident it shall be open to the complainant to make an application for cancellation of bail.

¶31

As regards fine, the same is not stayed and the appellant shall deposit the amount of fine before his release from jail pursuant to present bail order.

¶32

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶33

December 17, 2025 dk/

¶34

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vipin Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sensarpal Singh Bhati vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Prakash Pathak @ Kinni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sachin Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Dinesh Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.