Rehan Khan
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Satyendra Kumar Yadav, a Junior Engineer accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹10,00,000 from a contractor in exchange for processing a payment bill. The bail was granted by Hon’ble Justice Shree Prakash Singh of the Lucknow Bench in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 522 of 2025, while addressing several procedural irregularities highlighted by the defense.
According to the prosecution, a complaint was lodged by Mahendra Kumar Tripathi, a contractor, who alleged that the applicant demanded illegal gratification of ₹10,00,000 for processing a pending payment of ₹40,00,000 related to a road construction project completed under the PMGSY scheme. Acting upon the complaint, a team from the Anti-Corruption Vigilance Department organized a trap operation on 2nd December 2024, during which the applicant was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting ₹1,00,000.
The applicant, represented by counsels Lallan Rai, Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prakarsh Pandey, and Praveen Kumar Shukla, argued that he had been falsely implicated due to personal animosity with the complainant. It was submitted that Yadav had already forwarded the contractor’s bill on 3rd December 2023, and it was pending consideration before the Executive Engineer. The defense contended that there was no occasion or necessity for the applicant to demand any illegal gratification nearly a year later. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, the counsel emphasized that proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for establishing guilt under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was argued that in the present case, such proof was lacking.
A key contention raised by the applicant’s counsel related to procedural lapses in the search and seizure process. It was argued that the recovery proceedings were conducted approximately nine kilometers away from the place of occurrence, in violation of Section 103(4) and (5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The said provisions mandate that the search must be conducted in the presence of two independent, trustworthy local witnesses from the place of occurrence. The defense contended that the witnesses in this case were not local residents but were allegedly chosen by the police, thereby undermining the integrity of the seizure process. Reference was made to a Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 8th May 2024 in Bail Application No. 5457 of 2024, which held that the credibility of the seizure memo is compromised when proceedings are conducted at a distant location rather than the actual scene of recovery.
The State opposed the bail application, asserting that the applicant was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe, and that shadow witnesses were present during the operation. The State further argued that, being a government servant, the applicant might influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if granted bail.
After hearing both parties and perusing the case material, the Court observed that the procedural irregularities in the search and seizure proceedings, coupled with the absence of clear proof of demand and acceptance of bribe, cast doubt on the prosecution’s case at this stage. The Court noted that the bill in question had already been forwarded by the applicant long before the alleged demand for bribe, and the factual matrix did not support the prosecution’s theory of illegal gratification.
It was further noted that the applicant had no prior criminal history, was cooperating with the investigation, and had been in custody since 3rd December 2024. Considering these factors, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it a fit case for granting bail.
The Court ordered that Satyendra Kumar Yadav be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Among the conditions imposed, the applicant was directed not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, to remain present at all trial dates, and not to seek adjournments without sufficient cause. The Court also clarified that any breach of these conditions would result in cancellation of the bail.
Case Name: Satyendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 522 of 2025
Bench: Justice Shree Prakash Singh