IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 18th day of March, 2010 Ist Bail Application No. 1192 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Rajneesh Kumar .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No. 16/2009, U/s 7/13(1)D read with 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, PS Vigilance Sector, Dehradun. _______________________________________________________________ March 18, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Heard. In brief, the prosecution case is that the complainant Raja Ram Agarwal had moved an application to SP (Vigilance), Dehradun on 3.11.2009 to the effect that the present accused applicant, an Assistant Engineer in PWD at Barkot, Uttarkashi while working as a public servant was demanding Rs. 75,000/- as bribe to clear his dues and when the complainant requested him then the applicant agreed on Rs. 60,000/- for clearing the said dues. On this information, the SP, Vigilance formed two teams of Vigilance. On 6.11.2009 at about 12.15 pm, the team headed by Inspector Anand Singh Kathait arrested the present accused applicant red handed from the room of the co-accused Mahipal Singh Baseda at Barkot while receiving the bribe money of Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant Raja Ram Agarwal in lieu of releasing the final payment of 4.50 lakhs to the aforesaid complainant as he was the registered contractor of PWD, Uttarakhand and the work of construction of road on National Highway No. 123, 101 Kms to 107 Kms was done by the aforesaid complainant as contractor. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant argued that the applicant is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated in this case and the applicant cannot pass any bill without the recommendation of the co-accused Mahipal Singh Baseda. He further argued that the trap was not organized as per rules. He also submitted that the I.O. has submitted the chargesheet in this case and now there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Contrary to above, learned Brief Holder for the State while opposing the bail application of the accused applicant very strongly argued that the present applicant being a public servant demanded huge amount of money as illegal gratification and was caught red handed while accepting the bribe of Rs. 60,000/- from the aforesaid complainant. He further argued that the trap was laid in the presence of SP, Vigilance VK Juyal as well as in the presence of two independent witnesses, viz., SP Thapliyal, Supply Inspector and Vinay Kumar Rastogi, Entertainment Tax Inspector. He further submitted that the trap was laid as per rules. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the bail application. Perusal of the contents of the FIR; recovery memo and other papers available on record, prima facie indicates that the accused applicant, being public servant, was arrested on spot while accepting the bribe of such a huge amount i.e. Rs. 60,000/- for showing the favour in the matter of releasing the final payment of Rs. 4.50 lakhs due to the complainant Raja Ram Agarwal from the PWD Department, Barkot. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances and seriousness of the case, the Court is of the view that no case for bail is made out. Bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 18.3.2010 PRABODH 2