The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Vikas Kumar, a CGST Inspector accused in a bribery case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, observing that detention during trial cannot be punitive and that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception.”
The bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan allowed the bail application filed by Vikas Kumar, an Inspector posted with CGST Division-1, Meerut, who was booked under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
According to the prosecution, a complaint was lodged on February 11, 2025 alleging that CGST officials demanded Rs. 2 lakh from a proprietor dealing in electronic items in Meerut in connection with alleged discrepancies in GST bills submitted to the department. The complaint alleged that Superintendent Aaftab Singh and Inspector Vikas Kumar demanded illegal gratification from the complainant.
The CBI thereafter initiated a verification process involving independent witnesses and recorded conversations between the complainant and the accused officials. During verification proceedings, the complainant allegedly informed the applicant over a phone call that he could arrange only Rs. 1 lakh instead of the demanded Rs. 2 lakh. However, an independent witness later stated that he could not hear the alleged conversation between the complainant and the accused persons.
Subsequently, the CBI conducted a trap operation. The complainant allegedly carried Rs. 1 lakh treated with phenolphthalein powder. During the operation, the applicant allegedly instructed the complainant to hand over the amount to another person. Thereafter, co-accused Sachin Kumar allegedly accepted the bribe amount, following which the trap team apprehended him and recovered the tainted money.
Senior counsel appearing for the applicant argued that no direct recovery had been made from the applicant and that even as per the prosecution case, the alleged bribe amount was recovered from co-accused Sachin Kumar, who had already been granted bail by the High Court earlier. It was further argued that the independent witness did not support the prosecution’s version regarding the conversation allegedly establishing demand of bribe.
The defence also contended that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and had been in jail since October 27, 2025. It was argued that the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was seven years and that the applicant was being implicated mainly on the basis of criminal conspiracy allegations under Section 61(2) of the BNS.
Opposing the bail plea, the CBI argued that demand of illegal gratification stood established through the complaint and trap proceedings. The agency contended that even though the applicant had not physically received the money, he was part of the criminal conspiracy and demand itself constituted an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The High Court, however, noted several circumstances favouring grant of bail. The Court observed that the co-accused who allegedly received the money had already been enlarged on bail. It further noted that the independent witness had stated he did not hear the alleged conversation between the complainant and accused officials. The Court also took note of the fact that the post-trap memorandum was not prepared at the spot but later at a guest house.
The Court further observed that although the CBI alleged non-cooperation during investigation, no specific material had been produced to substantiate the allegation. The Court held that merely pursuing anticipatory bail remedies could not be treated as fleeing from investigation, especially when the applicant had appeared before the investigating officer after interim protection from the Supreme Court.
Importantly, the Court noted that the charge sheet had already been filed and that most prosecution witnesses were government servants. The Court also recorded that the forensic laboratory opinion was still awaited and that the mobile number allegedly used by the applicant was found during investigation to be registered in another person’s name.
While granting bail, the High Court reiterated the settled principle that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused during trial and not to impose pre-trial punishment. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgments in Satyendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, the Court observed that detention before conviction carries punitive consequences and liberty cannot be curtailed in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.
The Court also observed that there was no material to show that the applicant was a flight risk, would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or repeat the offence if released on bail. Considering the applicant’s clean antecedents, length of incarceration, and the maximum punishment prescribed, the Court held that a case for bail was made out.
The Allahabad High Court directed release of the applicant on bail subject to conditions including non-tampering of evidence, cooperation in trial proceedings, and restriction on leaving India without prior permission of the Court.
Case Details
Case Title: Vikas Kumar Versus CBI
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 43870 Of 2025
Date: 01.05.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Nidhi, Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel
Counsel For Respondent: Rahul Srivastava
