IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.854 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Rakesh Khatri ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: September 17, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.10 of 2010 Under Section 7/13(1)(d) r/w Sect. 13(2) P.C. Act P.S. Satarkta Adhisthan Sector Haldwani (Nainital) ______________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. In brief, the prosecution case is that complainant Mahendra Kumar moved an application to Vigilance Department, Haldwani to the effect that the present accused/applicant, while working as a public servant in State Insurance Dispensary Jagatpura, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar was demanding Rs.3,000/- as bribe to forward his medical papers. On this information, a vigilance team was formed and on 26.8.2010 at 12:15 PM, the team headed by Arvind Dangwal, Inspector, Vigilance Department, Nainital, arrested the present accused/applicant red handed from his office while demanding and accepting the bribe money of Rs.3,000/- from the complainant. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant argued that the applicant is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the case. He further argued that the trap was not organized as per rules. Contrary to above, learned Addl. GA for the State while opposing the bail application of the applicant/accused very strongly argued that the present applicant being a public servant, demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- as illegal gratification and was caught red handed while accepting the bribe of Rs.3,000/- from the complainant. He further argued that the trap was laid in the presence of two independent witnesses. 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 and other papers available on record, prima facie indicates that the accused/applicant, being public servant, was arrested while demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.3,000/- for showing the favour in the matter of forwarding medical papers of the complainant. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances and seriousness of the offence, the Court is of the view that no case for bail is made out. Bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.9.2010 RG