Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

TARA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as no material circumstance warranted its denial.

Summary

Tara Singh, a contractual employee, was arrested with Rs 12,000 allegedly received from co‑accused Sudhir Kumar, a junior engineer, under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment 2018). He has been in custody since 21 July 2026 and has no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail but did not present any facts indicating a risk of flight, evidence tampering, or witness intimidation. The Court reiterated the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Satyendra Kumar Antil v. CBI, and found no material to deny bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the Court in granting bail to the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
  • Whether the State has demonstrated any material circumstance that justifies denial of bail, such as risk of flight, tampering with evidence, or intimidation of witnesses.

Legislation cited

  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act 2018) — s. 12, 7

Subjects

  • bail
  • Prevention of Corruption Act
  • Section 7
  • Section 12
  • Article 21
  • criminal procedure
  • witness intimidation
  • evidence tampering
  • contractual employee

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31613 of 2026

Tara Singh
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Amit Kumar Tiwari, Pranesh Kumar
                                Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 55
                 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
a contractual employee and at the behest of the co-accused Sudhir Kumar,
who is Junior Engineer a sum of Rs.12,000/- has been received by the
applicant. Thereafter, the trap team has apprehended the applicant along
with Rs.12,000/- at the behest of co-accused Sudhir Kumar. The
maximum punishment provided is upto seven years. The present case is
triable by Magistrate. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is
languishing in jail since 21.7.2026 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 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. 31613 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 Tara Singh involved in Case Crime No.0308 of
2026, under Sections 7/12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(Amendment Act 2018, Police Hapur Dehat, District Hapur 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. 31613 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 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.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Bhaskar




Digitally signed by :-
BHASKAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.