Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Dubey vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 19 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142490 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28361 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajeev Dubey Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar,Ajay Kumar Pandey,Hitesh Pachori,Pratiksha Rai,Raghvendra Singh,Vineet Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Heard Sri Vineet Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for C.B.I. for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime/ R.C. No. 1202024A0010, under Sections 120-B IPC & 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- C.B.I., A.C.B., District- Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was Public Relations Inspector in the office of co-accused Devendra Kumar, the Senior Postmaster and as per allegation, co-accused Devendra Kumar made demand of bribe from the complainant and accepted the bribe through applicant but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.
4. He further submitted that, however, from the post trap memorandum filed by C.B.I. along with counter affidavit, it reflects, applicant accepted the bribe money of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant but from the post trap memorandum, it also reflects that when complainant informed him that co-accused Devendra Kumar, the Senior Postmaster, who was senior to him told that bribe money may be given to him, thereafter he accepted the same and from the entire post trap memorandum, it could not be reflected that applicant himself made any demand of bribe from the complainant and it appears, he acted on the behest of co-accused Devendra Kumar, the Senior Postmaster.
5. He further submitted that even bribe money of Rs. 20,000/- has not been recovered from the possession of applicant and the same has been recovered from the bag of co-accused Devendra Kumar.
6. He further submitted that after considering entire facts of the case in detail co-accused Devendra Kumar has been released on bail today by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28693 of 2024.
7. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 21.06.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant received the bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant but could not dispute the fact that from the post trap memorandum, it reflects, when complainant informed him that co-accused Devendra Kumar, the Senior Postmaster, who was senior to him told that bribe money may be given to him thereafter he accepted the same and from the entire post trip memorandum, it could not be reflected that applicant himself made any demand of bribe.
9. He further could not dispute the fact that the bag, from which the alleged bribe money was recovered, did not belong to the applicant and the same belonged to co-accused Devendra Kumar, the Senior Postmaster. He further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Devendra Kumar has already been released on bail today by this Court.
10. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 21.06.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.
11. I have heard both of the parties and perused the record of the case.
12. However, applicant was posted as Public Relations Inspector in the office of co-accused Devendra Kumar, the Senior Postmaster and as per allegation, co-accused Devendra Kumar made demand of bribe through the applicant from the complainant and thereafter applicant accepted the bribe from the complainant and put the same in the bag of co-accused Devendra Kumar, which was subsequently recovered and applicant and co-accused Devendra Kumar were arrested by CBI from the spot but from the post trap memorandum, it reflects, when complainant informed the applicant that co-accused Devendra Kumar told him to give bribe money to him then he accepted the same, therefore, it could not be reflected that applicant himself made any demand of bribe.
13. Further, even bribe money was recovered from the bag of co-accused Devendra Kumar. Further, co-accused Devendra Kumar has already been released on bail today by this Court .
14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 21.06.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.
15. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.
16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
18. Let the applicant- Rajeev Dubey be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 19.8.2025 KK Patel