The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, granted bail to Satyendra Kumar Yadav, a Junior Engineer accused of demanding a bribe of ₹10 lakh for processing a contractor’s bill. The court observed that “proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a sine qua non” for establishing guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Background
The bail plea was filed by Satyendra Kumar Yadav in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 522 of 2025. The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Mahendra Kumar Tripathi, a contractor, to the Superintendent of Police (Satarkta Adhisthan), Lucknow, on November 28, 2024. Tripathi alleged that Yadav demanded ₹10 lakh to clear a pending bill of ₹40 lakh for a road construction project under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) in Hardoi district.
On December 2, 2024, an Anti-Corruption team conducted a trap operation and allegedly caught Yadav red-handed accepting ₹1 lakh in bribe. He was arrested the next day and has been in custody since December 3, 2024.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
Justice Shree Prakash Singh, who presided over the case, analyzed two primary legal contentions:
- Proof of Demand and Acceptance of Bribe: The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Neeraj Dutta vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2023 4 SCC 731], which states that both demand and acceptance must be proven beyond doubt for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish any conclusive proof that Yadav had actually demanded the bribe.
- Validity of Search and Seizure Operations: The court observed that the seizure proceedings occurred 9 km away from the alleged place of offense, violating Section 103(4) and (5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The law mandates searches in the presence of independent witnesses from the locality. The court expressed concerns about procedural lapses, stating that the credibility of the seizure memo was questionable since it was not conducted at the scene of the alleged crime.
Arguments by the Defense and Prosecution
Defense Arguments:
- Falsified Allegations: The defense, represented by advocates Lallan Rai, Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prakarsh Pandey, and Praveen Kumar Shukla, argued that Yadav was framed due to enmity with the complainant.
- Lack of Bribe Demand: The bill in question had already been forwarded to the Executive Engineer in December 2023, making the alleged demand in December 2024 implausible.
- Improper Seizure Proceedings: The defense cited a Rajasthan High Court ruling (Bail Application No. 5457 of 2024) which held that evidence seized away from the alleged crime scene undermines its validity.
- No Criminal History: The applicant had no prior criminal record and had cooperated in the investigation.
Prosecution’s Stand:
- The Government Advocate opposed the bail, arguing that Yadav was caught accepting ₹1 lakh and that shadow witnesses were present.
- The bill’s prolonged pendency provided a clear motive for demanding a bribe.
- As a government servant, Yadav could potentially tamper with evidence if released.
Court’s Decision
After reviewing the arguments, Justice Shree Prakash Singh ruled in favor of granting bail, citing:
- Lack of prima facie evidence proving demand for the bribe.
- Procedural lapses in search and seizure, raising doubts about the fairness of the investigation.
- Fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing bail over prolonged pre-trial detention.
The court ordered Yadav’s release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties. However, strict conditions were imposed:
- Yadav shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
- He must attend court proceedings without unnecessary adjournments.
- He must appear in person on crucial dates such as charge framing and recording of statements.
- Any misuse of bail could lead to its cancellation.
