Allahabad High Court
ARJUN SIROHIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as a prima facie case of bribery was established.
Summary
The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Arjun Sirohi, a Secretary of a Krishi Mandi Utpadan Samiti, who was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000 in connection with a contract dispute under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated because the complainant was not the contract owner and asserted no prima facie case existed. The State opposed the bail, highlighting that Rs.10,000 was recovered by a trap team, indicating a substantive allegation of bribery. The court examined the material evidence and found that the defence of false implication was untenable and that a prima facie case was established. Consequently, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, holding that Section 482 CrPC does not warrant bail in such circumstances.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 CrPC when a prima facie case of bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act exists.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of false implication negates the existence of a prima facie case.
- Whether the recovery of the alleged bribe amount constitutes sufficient evidence to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 12, 7
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- bribery
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9462 of 2026
Arjun Sirohi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atal Bihari Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and
perused the material available on record.
2. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the
prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Arjun Sirohi in Case
Crime No. 0247 of 2026 converted Case Crime No.17 of 2026, under
Section 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended Act 2018),
Police Station Sikarpur, District Bulandshahr, converted Police Station
A.C.O., District Meerut.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is
working on the post of Secretary, Krishi Mandi Utpadan Samiti and it is
alleged that in respect of contract a sum of Rs.1,20,400/- when the
complainant visited the office of applicant, applicant has demanded a sum
of Rs.10,000/- for release of cheque. Subsequently when the complaint
was made to the Anti Corruption, then the Anti Corruption verified the
aforesaid fact and subsequently co-accused has been apprehended along
with Rs.10,000/-. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that
complainant was not the owner of the contract and as such, there was no
question of releasing the cheque. It is submitted that applicant has been
falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted by learned counsel
for applicant that applicant is innocent and has no concern with the
present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is
further argued that applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 482
NABAIL No. 9462 of 2026
2
BNSS. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. If the
applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty
and cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has apprehension of
his arrest by the police any time.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.
5. It is to be seen that in the present case there are serious allegations of
demand of bribe with the assistance of co-accused. The amount of
Rs.10,000/- has been recovered by the trap team. It is not a case where the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the case although learned counsel
for applicant tried to submit that when the applicant denied to give the
cheque to the complainant as he was not the owner of the contract then
the First Information Report was lodged. Such defence raised by applicant
is wholly untenable as there is no evidence in respect of same and the
amount has been recovered.
6. In view of aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
September 14, 2026
D. Tamang
Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…