Allahabad High Court
Abhinav Singh vs State Of U.P. on 16 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:186345
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32155 of 2025
Abhinav Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Nitin Kharwar, Rajrshi Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 09 of 2025, under Section 7 P.C. Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Prayagraj, District Prayagraj during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and as per allegation he was Investigating Officer of a criminal case in which, complainant was one of the accused and to take his favour he made demand of Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter he was apprehended by the Trap Team but entire allegation leveled against applicant is totally false.
5. He further submits, even from page-83 of the paper-book, which is pre trap information, it reflects, without adopting proper pre trap procedure the post trap procedure has been conducted, which is totally illegal.
6. He further submits, even from the FIR it reflects, after alleged trap applicant has taken to the police station and at police station recovery memo of alleged trap was prepared and this fact casts serious doubt on the entire trap proceedings.
7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has been completed and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 19.07.2025 i.e.for last three months.
8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for and submitted that applicant was dishonest police officer and he not only made demand of bribe but he was also apprehended red handed by the trap team but could not dispute the fact that from page-83 it reflects, pre trap procedure could not be conducted in accordance with law.
9. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that even recovery memo of the alleged trap has not been prepared at spot and the same has been prepared at police station.
10. Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has been completed and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 19.07.2025 i.e.for last three months.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
12. However, as per allegation, applicant was Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and he was conducting investigation of a criminal case in which, complainant of the case was one of the accuse and to take his favour he made demand of Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap team and even bribe money was also recovered from his possession but considering page-83 of the paper-book, which is pre trap report it reflects, without any proper pre trap proceeding, the post trap proceedings have been conducted and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant in this regard cannot be ruled out.
13. Further, even from the FIR it reflects, after the alleged trap applicant has taken to he police station and at police station recovery memo of trap was prepared.
14. Considering above facts the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that these facts cast serious doubt on the trap proceedings cannot be ruled out.
15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and investigation of the case has been completed and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 19.07.2025 i.e.for last three months.
16. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose.
17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
19. Let the applicant - Abhinav Singh 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
(Sameer Jain,J.) October 16, 2025 AK Pandey