Allahabad High Court

RAVINDER MEHTAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 March 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The Court held that bail is not warranted and dismissed the bail application.

Summary

The applicant, Ravinder Mehta, an Assistant Inspector General of Registration/Assistant Commissioner of Stamp in Shamli, was arrested after a trap operation alleged that he demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.1,00,000 to settle a stamp duty deficiency. The bail application was filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, seeking enlargement of bail while trial is pending under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that there was no independent witness, that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay, and that sanction for prosecution was still pending. The State contended that the trap was properly conducted, two independent witnesses were present, and the amount of bribe involved was substantial, justifying denial of bail. The Court examined the facts, noted the presence of independent witnesses and the seriousness of the alleged corruption, and distinguished the present case from earlier precedents where bail was granted. Consequently, the Court rejected the bail application, finding no ground for bail.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to a public servant accused of accepting a large bribe under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in a trap case.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the alleged lack of independent corroboration justify bail.
Whether the pending sanction for prosecution and the applicant's clean criminal record are sufficient grounds for bail.
Whether the precedents of Ashish Mishra and Subhash Patel are applicable to the present case.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 483
Prevention of Corruption Act — s. 7

Subjects

bail
corruption
bribe
trap operation
Prevention of Corruption Act
public servant
high court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5778 of 2026

Ravinder Mehta
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Katyayini, Rajrshi Gupta, Sr.
Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.

Court No. - 53
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.
Katyayini, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap
Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on
record.

3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been
filed by the applicant- Ravinder Mehta, seeking enlargement on bail
during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 231 of 2025, under
Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act,, Police Station Adarsh
Mandi, District Shamli.

4. The facts of the case are that an application dated 05.12.2025 was
given by Mahesh Kumar the original complainant in the office of
Superintendent of Police, U.P., Vigilance Department, Meerut Sector,
Meerut that he has purchased 26 bigha land in the name of his wife
Sangeeta and bhabhi Neelam for Rs. 90 Lakhs on 15.06.2024
showing the value of land of Rs. 1,04,20,000/-. As per the circle rate
Rs. 5,01,500/- stamp duty was paid on it. A notice dated 12.12.2024
from the Stamp Commissioner, Collector Stamp, Shamli in the name
of his wife Sangeeta and bhabhi Neelam was received in which the
value of the land was shown in the slab of Rs. 25,38,000/- and stamp
duty was demanded on it and an inspection was done after which the
location was found different on which less stamp duty was paid.
Later on a notice dated 13.02.2025 was received in response of
BAIL No. 5778 of 2026
2

which the original complainant through his lawyer presented his case.
After many dates being fixed subsequent to the notice and no
decision being taken he went along with his nephew Vardaan on
24.11.2025 to the office of Assistant Stamp Commissioner, Shamli
Ravinder Mehta and met him and enquried about the disposal of the
said notice on which he instructed him to meet his clerk Ashwani and
talk to him after which his work would be done otherwise he would
keep on running like this. When both the persons went and met the
clerk Ashwani they were told that less stamp duty has been paid and
Rs. 3,80,000/- stamp duty is to be paid and Rs. 1,00,000/- has to be
paid as bribe otherwise stamp duty of market rate has to be given. He
said that he would talk to the officer concerned and get the case
decided. The complainant then showed his hardship of not able to
give the money on which his clerk told him to come after a week and
then he would again talk to the officer concerned for reducing the
amount but the bribe of Rs. 1,00,000/- has to be given in full. Later on
the original complainant along with his nephew again went on
02.12.2025 to meet the clerk Ashwani who told them that he has
talked to the officer and he has stated that stamp duty of Rs.
1,60,000/- be given in addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be given as bribe
and they may come tomorrow to meet him. The original complainant
came on the next day i.e. 03.12.2025 and along with the clerk
Ashwani meet Ravinder Mehta, the Assistant Stamp Commissioner,
Shamli wherein Ravinder Mehta heard their complaint and stated that
their work will be settled in 50% of the amount and told them to
further talk to Ashwani and he will tell him about it. Ashwani then told
them that the officer had initially ask for Rs. 1,00,000/- as bribe and
additional stamp duty shall be decided by him on the date in the
matter which shall be deposited then. The original complainant does
not want to give bribe money to Ravinder Mehta and his clerk
Ashwani but wants them to be arrested. On his complaint pre-trap
proceedings were done and a trap was decided to be led. Two
independent persons were directed to be members of the trap team
by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. The original complainant
then gave two bundles of Rs. 500/- to the clerk Ashwani which was
kept by him in his pocket after which he asked for some money for
him. The complainant then requested that he would talk to the officer
for the work. He then told him that he would ask the officer for getting
BAIL No. 5778 of 2026
3

the work. The complainant then went inside and stated that he has
given the money to clerk Ashwani after which the person sitting in
front said he would see for the work. He assured him for the best to
be done. The clerk Ashwani was apprehended accepting Rs.
1,00,000/- as bribe. A recovery memo and arrest memo was
prepared. The present first information report has thus been lodged in
the present matter.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there
is no independent witness to corroborate the prosecution story. It is
further submitted that although charge-sheet in the matter has been
submitted but sanction for prosecution against the applicant is still
awaited, he has placed page 22 of the second supplementary
affidavit dated 16.02.2026 for the same. It is submitted that trap in the
present matter was laid at 13:10 hours but the first information report
has been lodged at 21:49 hours which is after about 08 hours & 30
minutes and there is no explanation for the delay in lodging of the first
information report. It is submitted that the entire proceedings of trap
were done at the police station and thus the sanctity of the same is in
serious doubt. It is submitted that the applicant was posted as
Assistant Inspector General of Registration / Assistant Commissioner
of Stamp in District Shamli. Learned counsel has further placed
before the Court the judgement of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.
2224 of 2024 (Ashish Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Another)
decided on 15.05.2025 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
34833 of 2022 (Subhash Patel Vs. State of U.P.) decided on
16.11.2022 and submitted that this Court has considered the fact that
proceedings were done at the police station and thus in the previous
case acquitted the accused-appellant whereas in the second case
granted him bail. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in
para 37 and is in jail since 09.12.2025.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for
bail and submitted that the proceedings in the present matter are trap
proceedings. It is submitted that there is demand and acceptance of
bribe money and thus the chain gets completed. It is submitted that
there were two independent witnesses in the matter duly nominated
by the District Magistrate concerned who were present at the time of
BAIL No. 5778 of 2026
4

raid. It is submitted that the recovery in the present matter of Rs.
1,00,000/- which is a huge amount and the applicant is Government
servant before whom the case of the original complainant was
pending for which he was given notice regarding the deficiency of
stamp duty in a document duly submitted for registration. It is
submitted that the charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted
after thorough investigation. It is submitted that in the case of Ashish
Mishra (supra) the said matter was after trial in which evidence was
led and more so the Court had extended the benefit of doubt to the
accused and allowed the appeal whereas in the other case being
Subhash Patel (supra) the bail was granted to him in which the
amount of bribe money was Rs. 5000/- and thus both the matters
stand on distinguishing feature with that of the present matter. It is
submitted that the present case is a case of bribe and thus the bail
application of the applicant be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is evident that the applicant was posted as Assistant
Inspector General of Registration / Assistant Commissioner of Stamp
in District Shamli. The document of registration in the name of wife
and relative of the original complainant was put to notice on the
ground of deficiency of stamp duty. The matter was before the
applicant as being the competent officer to look before it. There was a
demand of bribe for settling the matter on payment of some reduce
amount of stamp duty. Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid on the said demand.
The amount as paid is a huge amount. There are specific reasons
given in the first information report as to why the proceedings were
taken up at the police station.There are two independent witnesses
nominated by the District Magistrate concerned who were members
of the trap team. No ground for bail is made out.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does
not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

9. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

March 20, 2026
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…