In a hearing that stretched longer than expected this afternoon, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Labour Enforcement Officer Suresh Prakash Gautam, accused of demanding and accepting a ₹15,000 bribe. What caught everyone’s attention, though, was not just the bail order but the court’s sharp remarks about the casual manner in which corruption-trap procedures are being handled in Uttar Pradesh.
Background
According to the prosecution, Gautam was caught “red-handed” during a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Organisation earlier this year. The complainant alleged that the officer sought money to clear his labour-related claim. The trap team also claimed to have seized ₹21.5 lakh from Gautam’s house, said to be unaccounted cash.
But the defence pushed back. They pointed out that the complainant’s application itself was defective, which naturally delayed the claim processing. They also produced an earlier written complaint by Gautam stating that some officers in his own department were plotting against him - filed a week before the bribery complaint surfaced.
Court’s Observations
Inside Court No. 73, Justice Sameer Jain appeared particularly troubled by the manner in which the trap operation was executed. The judge noted that neither the accused’s nor the complainant’s hands were washed at the spot - a mandatory step to detect chemical traces. Furthermore, the alleged bribe money wasn’t sealed on site, and even the recovery memo was prepared later at the police station.
“These aspects,” the bench observed, “raise doubts over the sanctity of the trap proceedings.”
At one point, the courtroom murmured when the judge pointed out that investigators had not conducted any inquiry into the ₹21.5 lakh recovered from Gautam’s home, even though they mentioned it in the FIR. Despite this, the charge sheet included only Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with no further inquiry into possible disproportionate assets.
The defence also argued that the seized cash came from agricultural income; while the court did not endorse this claim, it noted that the issue was never probed by the investigating officer.
Justice Jain added, almost as a caution, “The argument of false implication cannot be ruled out at this stage,” referring to the officer's prior complaint against co-workers.
The judge further reminded the State that unless guilt is proven, an accused remains innocent. He emphasised that bail cannot be denied for punitive purposes, especially when the applicant has no criminal history and has already spent over three months in jail.
Decision
After weighing the inconsistencies in the trap proceedings and the incomplete investigation, the High Court granted bail to Gautam, directing him to furnish a personal bond with two sureties. He must appear before the trial court regularly and avoid influencing witnesses or engaging in any unlawful activity.
The order ended with an unusually stern directive: the Principal Secretary (Home) and the DGP of Uttar Pradesh must issue instructions to ensure that trap procedures - like washing hands and sealing money at the spot - are strictly followed. The court noted that such lapses have become “common” in corruption cases, undermining the very purpose of trap operations.
With that, the matter concluded for the day, leaving behind a clear signal: the judiciary is losing patience with lax investigation standards.
Case Title: Suresh Prakash Gautam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42264 of 2025
Case Type: Bail Application (Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 7)
Decision Date: 1 December 2025
