PC Act | Washing Of Hands & Sealing Of Bribe Must Be Done At Spot, Not Police Station: Allahabad High Court Orders DGP To Issue Directions

Taking serious exception to the "casual manner" in which investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) 1988, are being conducted in Uttar Pradesh, a bench of Justice Sameer Jain directed the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police (DGP) to issue necessary directions ensuring these proceedings take place strictly at the scene of the crime.

The court passed this order while allowing the bail application of Suresh Prakash Gautam, a Labour Enforcement Officer accused of demanding a bribe.

Justice Jain remarked that investigations in such cases are often handled with a lack of procedural rigor. The Court observed:

"In most of the cases, neither the hands of the accused and the complainant are being washed at spot where trap was made nor even the recovered bribe money is being sealed at the place of Trap though for sanctity of the trap proceedings these proceedings should be conducted at the spot where trap was made".

To address this systemic lapse, the Court has now directed for the issuance of circulars to rectify the practice.

Briefly put, in this case, the applicant-accused was arrested in connection with a case u/s 7 of 1988 Act on the allegations that he demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000 to settle a claim and was "apprehended red handed" by a Trap Team.

Challenging the trap proceedings, the applicant moved the HC stating that the same was deeply suspicious. It was argued that the FIR itself admits that it was at the police station, and not at the spot of the trap, that the hands of the applicant and the complainant were washed and the alleged recovered bribe money was sealed and the recovery memo was prepared.

The Court found merit in this submission and noted that the argument that the trap proceeding appears to be doubtful cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

The Court also took into account the defence argument regarding a pre-existing conspiracy and this was backed by an application moved by the applicant before the Deputy Labour Commissioner alleging that some officers were hatching a conspiracy against him.

This was exactly one week before the complainant filed the complaint on August 21, 2025.

Furthermore, the prosecution had pointed out that approximately Rs. 21.50 Lakhs was recovered from the applicant's house. However, the High Court noted that the IO did not conduct any investigation regarding this recovery and the charge sheet was filed solely under Section 7 of the PC Act.

The Court further noted that the applicant claimed that the money was earned from selling crops and trees but the IO failed to investigate this claim or charge the applicant for disproportionate assets.

Against this backdrop, noting that the applicant had no previous criminal history and had been in jail since August 25, 2025, the Court said that he was entitled to be released on bail.

The Bench added that "unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes".