Recently, the Allahabad High Court heard a bail plea in a corruption matter that unexpectedly placed the spotlight on the manner in which trap proceedings are conducted by investigating agencies. What was projected as a clear-cut case of a government officer caught accepting a bribe soon revealed layers of procedural uncertainty, departmental tensions, and investigative lapses.
The case arose from an FIR alleging that the applicant, posted as a Labour Enforcement Officer, demanded Rs.15,000 from the complainant to settle his labour-related claim. Acting upon the complaint, an Anti-Corruption trap team allegedly caught him red-handed and recovered the marked currency from his possession.
A subsequent search of his residence led to the recovery of Rs.21,50,000, though the investigating officer did not link the amount to any offence and proceeded only under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Counsel for the Applicant argued that he had been framed due to internal office hostility. They pointed out that a week before the complaint, the applicant had formally informed the Deputy Labour Commissioner that certain officers were conspiring against him. They also submitted that the complainant’s claim application annexed in the record was defective, and therefore, there was no occasion for any illegal demand.
The defence strongly questioned the legitimacy of the trap, highlighting that hand-wash tests, sealing of tainted currency, and preparation of the recovery memo were all conducted at the police station, not at the trap site, making the entire procedure unreliable. The large cash recovered from the applicant’s house, they said, was agricultural income.
The State opposed the plea, asserting that the officer was caught with bribe money despite holding a responsible post. However, the State could not contest the fact that the FIR itself reflected major procedural lapses in the trap.
The Court observed that although allegations of bribe demand and recovery existed, the trap proceedings suffered from serious procedural deviations. It noted that neither the hand-wash test nor the sealing of currency was done at the spot where the trap was conducted; instead, these crucial steps were executed at the police station. The Court remarked that such practice undermines the sanctity of trap operations.
The Court also took note of the applicant’s earlier complaint about an internal conspiracy, the defective nature of the complainant’s claim application, and the absence of investigation regarding the substantial cash recovered from the applicant’s house. It reaffirmed that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and bail cannot be denied as a means of punishment.
Considering the surrounding circumstances, the Court granted bail to the Applicant with conditions. It clarified that its observations were only for deciding the bail application and would not affect the trial. The Court also directed the Principal Secretary (Home) and the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, to rectify the prevalent practice of conducting trap formalities away from the actual spot.
Case Title: Suresh Prakash Gautam v State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 42264 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Sameer Jain
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Anil Kumar Verma, Adv. Raghuvansh Misra
Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate
Read order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
