IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal I Bail Application No.118 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Arvind Kumar Sharma ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.15 of 2009, U/s 7/13(1)(D) r/w Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Vigilance Sector Dehradun Dated: September 06, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This is the second bail application, the first one was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.3.2010 and that was not decided on merits. Heard Sri DK Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. According to the prosecution case, the present applicant being employed as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department, Haridwar, was arrested by the team of Vigilance headed by Incharge Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Haridwar on 30.10.2009 at about 3:15 PM from his office while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- which he received from the complainant Khushalpal, a contractor in Irrigation Department Haridwar, in lieu of releasing his security money which he had deposited with the Irrigation Department against a work which he carried out for which he had already received the payment from the Irrigation Department. 2 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in jail since 30.10.2009 and the trial has yet not been completed and even not a single prosecution witness has been examined till today. He further submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated. Learned Addl. GA strongly opposed the bail and submitted that the present applicant, being a public servant and an Assistant Engineer with the Irrigation Department, Uttarakhand, has been arrested on the spot while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of releasing the security money of the complainant which he had deposited with the department. Further, before laying the trap, the veracity of the complainant was made and after finding it correct, the trap was laid and there is no reason for false implication of the present applicant. He further submitted that looking into the correctness of the complaint, the trap was laid and the applicant/accused was arrested red handed and on these grounds, he prayed for rejection of bail. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR and other papers available on record particularly considering the fact that the applicant, who was posted as Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, has been nabbed on the spot while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant in presence of the independent witnesses, as well as looking to the gravity of offence, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 06.09.2010 Rajeev Dang