Allahabad High Court
SHIVSHANKAR PALversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The applicant, Shivshankar Pal, a Gram Panchayat Adhikari, was arrested for demanding a Rs 10,000 illegal gratification in connection with a Rs 1,25,000 bill, an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has been in custody since 21‑01‑2026 and has no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail but did not allege any risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or flight. The Court reiterated the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception under Article 21 of the Constitution, citing Satyendra Kumar Antil v. CBI. Finding no material circumstance to deny bail, the Court granted bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act considering the nature of the offence and the facts of the case.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Corruption Act — s. 7
Subjects
- bail
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Section 7
- illegal gratification
- Article 21
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11724 of 2026
Shivshankar Pal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kripa Shankar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and has
no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is
the Gram Panchayat Adhikari. It is alleged that for passing of a bill of
Rs.1,25,000/- the applicant has demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal
gratification. The bill in question was cleared by the District Panchayat
Raj Officer and the amount was credited in the account of the firm. The
trap team caught the applicant with the amount of Rs.10,000/-. The
applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since
21.1.2026 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty
of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not
dispute factual matrix of the case.
5. Learned AGA has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate
criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the
applicant for Bail.
6. It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the
investigation or proceedings before the trial court.
BAIL No. 11724 of 2026
2
7. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well
recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article
21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex
Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation
and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any
exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the
Applicant.
8. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA
that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the
accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would
intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert
justice or tamper with the evidence.
9. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or
circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or
thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown
by learned AGA for the State.
10. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or
circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger
interests of the public or State.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
The bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant Shivshankar Pal involved in Case Crime No.01 of
2026, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station
Maudaha, District Hamirpur released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
BAIL No. 11724 of 2026
3
ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make
himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when
required.
iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected.
v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court.
vii. In the event, the applicant changes his residential address, the
applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address
in writing.
13. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
May 7, 2026
Bhaskar
Digitally signed by :-
BHASKAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…