IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.18 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Mahipal Singh Baseda ...….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: March 29, 2010 ____________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.17 of 2009 Under Section 7/13 (1) D read with 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 P.S. Vigilance Sector, Dehradun ________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Additional G.A. for the State and also perused the record. 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, who was Junior 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.45,000/- for clearing the said dues. On this information, SP Vigilance formed two teams of Vigilance. On 6.11.2009 at 12:15 PM, the team headed by Inspector Mahipal Singh Pal arrested the present accused/applicant red handed from his room at Barkot while receiving the bribe money of Rs.45,000/- from the complainant Raja Ram Agarwal in lieu of releasing the final payment of Rs.4.50 lacs 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 the case. He further argued that the trap was not organized as per rules. He also submitted that the I.O. has submitted the charge sheet in this case and now there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 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 huge amount of money as illegal gratification and was caught red handed while accepting the bribe of Rs.45,000/- from the complainant. He further argued that the trap was laid in presence of S.P. Vigilance V.K. Juyal as well as 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; recovery memo and other papers available on record, prima facie indicates that the accused/applicant, being public servant, was arrested while accepting the bribe of such a huge amount i.e. Rs.45,000/- for showing the favour in the matter of releasing the final payment of Rs.4.50 lacs due to complainant Raja Ram Agarwal from the PWD, 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.) 29.03.2010 RG