Allahabad High Court
ASHOK KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
Ashok Kumar, a Junior Engineer with the PWD, was arrested on allegations of demanding Rs.50,000 for the clearance of bills, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (amended 2018). He contended that he was falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and had been in custody since 12 August 2025. The State opposed bail but did not present any evidence of flight risk, tampering with evidence, or intimidation of witnesses. Relying on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and citing Satyendra Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), the court found no exceptional circumstances to deny bail. Consequently, the court granted bail with a personal bond, two sureties, and several conditions to ensure the applicant’s compliance during trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended 2018).
- Whether there exist any factors such as flight risk, likelihood of tampering with evidence, or intimidation of witnesses that justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended 2018) — s. 7
Subjects
- bail
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Section 7
- false implication
- flight risk
- evidence tampering
- Article 21
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39770 of 2025
Ashok Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghuvansh Misra, Ramesh Kumar
Pandey
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
working on the post of Junior Engineer in PWD. It is alleged that the
applicant has demanded Rs.50,000/- for clearance of some bills. The
complainant made a complaint and trap team was constituted. The
applicant was apprehended with Rs.50,000/- The statement of one Sanjay
Kumar, who is Assistant Engineer in the office of Executive Engineer,
PWD, Hapur has been recorded in which he has stated that in respect of
the bills in question the concerned Junior Engineer was Smt. Poonam
Kumari and the applicant was not authorized in the work. The applicant
has been falsely implicated. The applicant has no criminal history.
Applicant is languishing in jail since 12.8.2025 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
BAIL No. 39770 of 2025
2
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.
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 Ashok Kumar involved in Case Crime No.18 of
BAIL No. 39770 of 2025
3
2025, under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act as amended 2018,
Police Station Anti Corruption Meerut, District Meerut 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:-
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.)
May 7, 2026
Bhaskar
Digitally signed by :-
BHASKAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…