IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.546 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Indraveer Singh Negi ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party Arising out of Case Crime No.3 of 2010, U/s 7/13(1)(D) r/w Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Vigilance Sector, Dehradun, Distt. Dehradun Dated: June 25, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. As per the prosecution case, the present applicant, being posted as Media Assistant at UPCL, Urja Bhawan, Dehradun was nabbed on 10.2.2010 at about 1:50 PM at his office while demanding and accepting Rs.4,000/- as illegal gratification. The allegation against the applicant is that he was demanding money as illegal gratification in lieu of releasing the cheque of pending amount of Rs.1,25,000/- of the complainant Shivam Aggarwal, due to which the complaint was made by the complainant to Vigilance Department, on which the above proceedings were initiated. The necessary formalities for conducting the trap, as provided under the Act, were also been carried out. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated. Learned Addl. GA 2 appearing for the State, while strongly opposing the bail application, submitted that the applicant was demanding Rs.4,000/- from the complainant in lieu of releasing the cheque of pending amount of Rs.1.25 lacs. Since the complainant did not want to pay bribe, hence he lodged the application against the complainant. He further argued that the applicant being a public servant, has been nabbed on the spot while demanding and accepting Rs.4,000/- as illegal gratification in lieu of handing over the cheque of pending amount of Rs.1.25 lacs to the complainant. He further submitted that before laying the trap, the veracity of the complaint was made and after finding it correct, the trap was laid and the applicant was found red handed by the Trap Party headed by Inspector Virad Prakash Sharma in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Minhajul Haq, Junior Engineer, PWD, Dehradun and Sunder Singh, Senior Entertainment Tax Inspector, Dehradun. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, the I.O. also recorded the statements of Inspector Virad Prakash Sharma, Inspector Rajeev Dandariyal, complainant Shivam Aggarwal, Vinod Kumar, Minahjul Haq (independent witness), Balram (Cashier), Sunder Singh (also an independent witness) and Vinay Gupta, recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which have also been annexed, who have also fully corroborated the prosecution story. 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 was nabbed on the spot while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Minhajul Haq and Sunder 3 Singh, 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. 25.06.2010 Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.)