Bail may be granted in corruption trap cases where there are material discrepancies such as absence of pending work, lack of time details, and recovery from an open place, especially when custody is prolonged and trial will take time.

Order

1. This instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner Virendra Kumar S/o Shri Murari Lal under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, who was arrested by the police in connection with FIR No. 56/2026 dated 27.02.2026 registered at Police Station CPS Jaipur, ACB District for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1988’). The complainant submitted a written complaint to the respondent-ACB on 23.02.2026 alleging illegal demand made by the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was arrested by the ACB on 25.02.2026. Thereafter, he moved a bail application before the learned Trial Court which was rejected vide order dated 19.03.2026. Aggrieved by the rejection of the bail application by the learned Trial Court, petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the present bail application.

2. Learned counsel, Mr. Anurag Sharma, submitted that the ACB arrested the petitioner on 25.02.2026 on the allegation that he demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mutation in the revenue record of the land purchased by the complainant's father, through a registered sale deed dated 06.01.2026. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegations leveled by the ACB in the impunged FIR bearing no. 56/2026 are false and baseless as no such demand was ever made. It was further submitted that although the FIR alleges demand and recovery of gratification of Rs. 50,000/- for carrying out mutation, but admittedly no application for mutation in terms of the revenue law was ever submitted either by the complainant or his father. Therefore, no work of mutation was pending with the petitioner on the date of alleged trap.

3. Learned counsel further strongly submitted that on the date of alleged trap, when the ACB team entered the room of the petitioner, they found the alleged tainted money openly on the window panel and not concealed at any secret place. It was also submitted that the contents of the FIR itself shows that when ACB entered the room, the petitioner was eating his food at 09:00 A.M. Counsel specifically pointed out that, as per the content of the FIR, when the complainant entered the room, the petitioner was not eating his food, however, when the ACB team entered the room (after undisclosed time), petitioner was found eating his food. It was contended that it is only after washing his hands when he was eating the food, the ACB entered the room and admittedly seized the alleged money from an open place.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no specific time mentioned in the FIR of entry and exit of the complainant in petitioner's room and also of entry of the ACB into the room of the petitioner for the alleged trap. The undisclosed time gap with which ACB team entered the room in itself creates serious doubt on the story of the ACB as mentioned in the FIR. Admittedly, due to washing of hands, there could not be any colour on his hands. However, the respondent-ACB, in order to show its trap as successful, falsely recorded that pink colour was found on the hands of the petitioner.

5. Counsel further submitted that the entire FIR contains no time details of each act of the trap in the case where as per the usual practice time is mentioned by ACB of each act performed by it while conducting the exercise under the Act of 1988. The absence of time in the FIR raises serious doubts regarding the complete trap as conducted on 25.02.2026.

6. On the basis of the above submissions, learned counsel submitted that the complete case is false on the face of record.

7. Learned counsel also submitted that the ACB after conducting the detailed investigation has filed the chargesheet on 25.04.2026; no recovery is required to be made; no interrogation is required and he is behind bars from three months now and further trial will take its usual long time. In view thereof, learned counsel prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail in the above mentioned serious facts as