Allahabad High Court

YOGESH KUMAR TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: VIKRAM D CHAUHAN

Holding

The Court granted bail to the applicant, finding that he was entitled to it under the circumstances.

Summary

Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, a Lekhpal, was arrested for allegedly demanding Rs.10,000 for land measurement and was charged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has been in custody since July 1, 2026 and has no prior criminal record. The applicant sought bail, arguing that he would not misuse liberty and would cooperate with the trial, while the State did not contest the factual matrix but opposed bail without citing any exceptional circumstances. The Court examined the principle that bail is a rule and jail an exception under Article 21, noting the absence of any risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or flight. Relying on the precedent set in Satyendra Kumar Antil v. CBI, the Court found no material to deny bail and held that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the absence of flight risk or likelihood of tampering with evidence
Whether the State has demonstrated any exceptional circumstances justifying denial of bail

Legislation cited

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 7

Subjects

bail
Prevention of Corruption Act
Section 7
Article 21
corruption
criminal procedure
witness intimidation
evidence tampering

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31468 of 2026

Yogesh Kumar Tiwari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahendra Pratap Singh, Mohd. Ashraf
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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 applicant is the
Lekhpal and it is alleged that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was demanded by the
applicant for measurement of the land. Subsequently trap team was
constituted and applicant was apprehended with Rs. 10,000/-. The charge
sheet has been filed. The maximum punishment provided under Section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is seven years and is triable by
Magistrate concerned. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is
languishing in jail since 1.7.2026 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 for the State 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
BAIL No. 31468 of 2026
2

investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

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 for the State 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
for the State 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-Yogesh Kumar Tiwari involved in Case Crime No.
17 of 2026, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police
Station Anti Corruption Bareilly, District Bareilly be 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:-
BAIL No. 31468 of 2026
3

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

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 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.)
September 8, 2026
VMA

Digitally signed by :-
VISHWA MOHAN ARORA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…