1. This regular bail application has been filed by the sole accused in VC No.21/2025 of VACB, Ernakulam.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the prosecution in detail. Perused the relevant documents and report of the Investigating Officer.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, who is the sole accused in this crime, while officiating as an Assistant Engineer, Section Office, KSEB, Thevara, as such being a public servant, had demanded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the defacto complainant at 2.30 p.m on 11.11.2025 for giving permanent electric connection to the newly constructed Graha Homes apartment belonging to the defacto complainant. When this demand was reported to the Vigilance, FIR was registered and thereafter, trap proceedings were initiated and, on 12.11.2025 afternoon, the petitioner/accused demanded and accepted Rs.90,000/- from the defacto complainant as part of the bribe. Soon he was arrested red-handedly along with the trap money. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as `the PC Act, 2018’ for short).

4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the petitioner is innocent and he did not demand or accept any bribe, as alleged by the prosecution. According to him, mere allegations alone have been raised against the petitioner/accused. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who has no criminal antecedents and has been continuing in custody from 11.11.2025, may be released on bail and he is ready to co- operate with the investigation.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor zealously opposed the prayer for bail on the submission that this is a clear case of trap of the petitioner/accused, involving a gigantic amount of Rs.90,000/- out of the total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- demanded, for providing electric connection to the newly constructed Graha Homes apartment belonging to the defacto complainant. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, investigation is at the initial stage and the premature release of the petitioner by granting bail in a case involving a huge amount of bribe would impede the investigation.

6. On perusal of the records, it could be seen that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the defacto complainant for giving permanent electric connection to the newly constructed Graha Homes apartment belonging to the defacto complainant, at 2.30 p.m on 11.11.2025 and thereafter demanded and accepted Rs.90,000/- as part payment of the same on 12.11.20025, and he was nabbed red-handedly. Even though it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, the prosecution records, including the statement of the defacto complainant, showing the prosecution allegations, prima facie, where the accused was arrested red- handedly along with the bribe money of Rs.90,000/-, immediately on receipt of the same by him. Thus, it appears that the prosecution case is well made out, prima facie, and the innocence of the petitioner/accused, as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be countenanced. It has been recited in the entrustment mahazar that when the petitioner/accused was caught red-handed, he stated that “it so happened and he pleaded for rescue and also asked for water”. However, as per the report of the Investigating Officer and as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, voice recording of the accused demanding bribe is available to prove the demand and subsequent demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused, apart from the direct evidence of the complainant. Thus, the innocence, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be found even as a remote possibility at this stage.

7. However, having considered his custody from 11.11.2025 and in view of the fact that he had no criminal antecedents, the petitioner can be released on bail on conditions.

8. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail on the following conditions:

                  i.        The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special court concerned.

                  ii.       The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for trial. He shall visit the Investigating Officer on every Monday in between 9 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months and also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

                  iii.       The petitioner shall not enter his office during the period of bail or influence anybody in the office to manipulate the records. The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Special court.

                  iv.      The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

                  v.       The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Special Court on the date of execution of the bail bond or within ten days therefrom, with special permission of the Special Court. If the petitioner has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect, instead of surrendering passport, within the stipulated time.

                  vi. The petitioner shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.