Allahabad High Court

MANJEET KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 12 February 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed; the criminal proceedings are not quashed.

Summary

Manjeet Kumar filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the summons, charge sheet and trial proceedings in a corruption case under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, arising from a police trap in which cash was recovered from him. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that there was no demand or acceptance of bribe, that the sanction order was illegal, and that the complainant’s lack of objection should lead to dismissal. The State argued that the FIR named the applicant, he was arrested on the spot, a solution test on the recovered cash was positive, and independent witnesses corroborated the trap. The Court examined the evidence, noted the positive solution test and the recovery of cash, and held that issues of demand, acceptance and sanction are matters for trial. It distinguished the Supreme Court judgments cited by the applicant as post‑trial decisions and found no ground to interfere. Consequently, the application under Section 528 was rejected and the proceedings were allowed to continue.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of invoking Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings on the ground of alleged irregularity in the sanction order.
Whether the absence of a demonstrable demand and acceptance of bribe at the pre‑trial stage warrants dismissal of the case.
Whether the complainant’s statement of no objection is sufficient to quash the proceedings.
Whether the police trap operation and positive solution test constitute a valid basis for continuation of prosecution.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 528
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 12, 7

Subjects

Prevention of Corruption Act
Section 528 BNSS
quash of criminal proceedings
police trap
sanction order
demand and acceptance of bribe
solution test
false implication

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 50992 of 2025

Manjeet Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar Shahi, Sanju Singh, Umesh
Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Raj Kamal Singh

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

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Shah and Sri Umesh Kumar Singh, learned counsels for
the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Raj
Kamal Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and Sri Birendra
Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicant Manjeet Kumar, with the prayer to allow the present application
and quash the summoning/taking of cognizance order dated 01.07.2025,
charge sheet dated 28.06.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Special
Session Trial No. 537 of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. Akash Singh and another)
arising out of Case Crime No. 04 of 2025, under Sections 7 and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Anti Corruption Prayagraj, District
ACO UP, pending in the court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption
Act), Special Court No.3, Varanasi and with a further prayer to stay the
further proceedings of the said case, during the pendency of the present
application.

4. The facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged by
Anjali Yadav on 02.05.2025 against Akash Singh and the applicant on the
basis of recovery of currency notes in trap proceedings. A total of Rs.
10,000/- was recovered in the said raid. The allegation is that co-accused
Akash Singh the Executive Engineer Electricity Department took the money
and handed it over to the applicant and both were got in trap and proceedings
of trap were conducted and they were arrested.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:

(i) The applicant has bee falsely implicated in the present case.

(ii) The applicant was posted as a lineman on contractual basis through
service provider of M/s TDS Management Consultant Private Limited, Plot
NA528 No. 50992 of 2025
2

No. E-193, TDS Tower, Industrial Area, Phase 8B, Mohali, Punjab, 16005.

(iii) The applicant was under the control and command of co-accused Akash
Singh.

(iv) The proceedings of trap were conducted entirely at the police station and
thus its sanctity is seriously doubted.

(v) There is no evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe money by the
applicant and thus the prosecution cannot proceed against him.

(vi) The original complainant Manoj Kumar Gupta has in para 4 of his short
counter affidavit dated 18.12.2025 stated that he has no complaint or
grievance against the present applicant as he had never demanded any bribe
from him and he has no objection to the present proceedings against the
applicant are quashed by this Court.

(vii) While placing para 36 of the affidavit in support of the application U/s
528 BNSS that order of sanction is not in accordance with law and
provisions of law and thus the same is seriously challenged.

(viii) Judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Lokayuktha
Police, Davanagere Vs. C.B. Nagraj : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 620, B.
Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P. : 2014 (13) SCC 55 and P. Satyanarayana
Murthy Vs. Dist. Inspector of Police : 2015 (10) SCC 152 have been
placed to argue that since the demand of bribe money by the applicant has
not been proved, the chain and circumstances are not complete and thus the
prosecution needs to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the original complainant/opposite party no.3 although
is present but he does not oppose the argument of the present petition and
only places para 4 of his short counter affidavit in support of the application
and states that he has no objection if present proceedings are quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the State opposed the petition vehemently and
submitted as under:

(i) The applicant is named in the FIR.

(ii) The applicant was arrested from the spot and in a trap wherein cash
money was taken by co-accused Akash Singh the Junior Engineer who then
handed it over to the applicant by stating that it shall be distributed later on
and thus the applicant was apprehended and even the solution test in so far
as the applicant is related showed positive results.

(iii) The question of sanction cannot be a ground for quashing of the
proceedings or discharge of the applicant as the same is a matter of trap.

(iv) Merely by the original complainant stating that he has no objection for
quashing of the proceedings in so far as the applicant is related cannot be the
NA528 No. 50992 of 2025
3

ground for quashing the said proceedings.

(v) The applicant has been arrested with currency notes and in trap
proceedings and thus it cannot be said that he has been falsely implicated.

(vi) There were independent witnesses also to the trap proceedings.

(vii) The proceedings were conducted at the police station for the reasons
recorded in the recovery memo and FIR which is duly explained.

(viii) The present application U/s 528 BNSS cannot be allowed on the
ground that the chain at this stage of demand and acceptance is not complete
inasmuch as the same is a matter of trial and evidence will be led for it and
then a reasonable conclusion will be drawn by the trial court.

(ix) It is submitted that thus the present petition be dismissed.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that the applicant was arrested in trap proceedings. Co-
accused Akash Singh was also arrested. Solution test proved positive during
the course of trap proceedings. Cash money was recovered from the
possession of the applicant. Challenge to the sanction order and also to the
chain and circumstances regarding demand and acceptance has to be proved
in the trial. The judgments as relied upon by learned counsel for the
applicant were after trial in which evidence had been led and thus the same
are distinguishable on facts.

9. In view of the same, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case,
there is no ground to interfere in the matter and is rejected.

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

(Samit Gopal,J.)
February 13, 2026
M. ARIF

Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…