Allahabad High Court

ANIL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: VIKRAM D CHAUHAN

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no material indicating flight risk, witness intimidation, or prior criminal history, and bail is appropriate under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Summary

The applicant, Anil Kumar, was arrested for allegedly demanding Rs.10,000 in exchange for a report, an offence alleged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has been in custody since 24 July 2026 and has no prior criminal record. The primary issue before the court was whether bail should be granted, considering factors such as flight risk, potential witness intimidation, and the seriousness of the offence. The State did not present any evidence that the applicant would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or flee, nor did it show any prior convictions or attempts to evade the law. Applying the principle that bail is intended to secure attendance and not to punish, the court found 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
Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses
Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence justifies denial of bail

Legislation cited

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 7

Subjects

bail
prevention of corruption act
section 7
flight risk
witness intimidation
criminal procedure
presumption of innocence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32398 of 2026

Anil Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Charan Singh, Pramod Kumar
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
Kanoongo and it is alleged that applicant was demanding a sum of
Rs.10,000/- for submission of report. Subsequently trap team was
constituted and applicant was apprehended with Rs.10,000/-. It is
submitted that the trial is by Magistrate and maximum punishment
provided is seven years. The applicant has no previous criminal history.
Applicant is languishing in jail since 24.7.2026 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 there is a possibility of interdicting
BAIL No. 32398 of 2026
2

fair trial by the accused-applicant if released on bail. No material has been
shown that the Applicant is of such character that his mere presence at
large would intimidate the witnesses or there is any material to show that
applicant will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the
evidence.

7. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the
detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there
is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned
A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that
the character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at
large would intimidate the witness.

8. Learned A.G.A. has not placed any reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State will
be at peril in case the Applicant is released on bail.

9. It is not the case of the State that the applicant has been convicted for
any offence on previous occasion.

10. No material has been placed by the opposite party that the Applicant
in the past has attempted to evade the process of law. Further, no material
facts and circumstances have been placed to show that it is not in public
interest or interest of society at large to release the applicant on bail.

11. No material has been shown to suggest that the applicant is at flight
risk, has chance of repeating the offence, or intimidating the witness if
enlarged on bail.

12. 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.

13. Let the applicant Anil Kumar involved in Case Crime No.7 of 2026,
under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station
Varanasi Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District Varanasi be released
BAIL No. 32398 of 2026
3

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.

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.

14. 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 11, 2026
D. Tamang

Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…