1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 21st day of February, 2011 Third Bail Application No. 40 of 2010 Criminal Side Abhay Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Akshyawar Pandey R/o Gharhaniya P.S. Mankata District Devariya (U.P.) At present Assistant Commissioner Sale Tax Department Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar ……...Applicant ( in Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …..….Opposite Party Arising out of FIR no. 09 of 2010 Under Section: 7, 13, (1)(d) r/w section 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 P.S.Vigilance Department Sector Haldwani District Nainital ______________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Shri D.K. Sharma, Advocate, present for the applicant. Shri G.S. Sandhu, G.A., present for the State. Applicant- Abhay Kumar Pandey, who is in jail in connection with FIR no. 09 of 2010, relating to offences 2 punishable under section 7, 13, (1)(d) r/w section 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Vigilance Department Sector Haldwani, District Nainital,has sought his release on bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties. First bail application was rejected on 20.10.2010, as not pressed. The second bail application was rejected on 11.11.2010. It is pointed out that after rejection of first bail application P.W.1 Mohd. Yakoob (complainant) was examined on 04.01.2011, by the trial court who did not support the prosecution case that complainant gave amount to the present applicant. He further told the court that it was not the applicant Abhay Kumar Pandey from whom the amount was recovered by the Vigilance team. Similarly P.W.2 Ajay Rawat was examined by the trial court on 31.01.2011, who categorically stated before the trial court that no money was paid to Abhay Kumar Pandey (complainant) nor anything was recovered from him by the vigilance team. Not only this, even P.W.3 Laxman Singh who was examined by the trial court on 07.02.2011, also made similar statement that no amount was paid to the applicant nor anything recovered from him. All the three witnesses were got declared hostile by the prosecution. In the above circumstances, there is sufficient new ground on which the applicant is now entitled to bail. 3 In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail. The third bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Abhay Kumar Pandey be released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 21.02.2011 Parul