IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal I Bail Application No.199 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Surendar Singh Kunwar ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.1 of 2010, U/s 7/13(1)(D) r/w Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Vigilance Sector, Dehradun Dated: March 17, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Rajendra Kotiyal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that on the complaint dated 11.1.2010 moved by Darshan Lal (A registered contractor in Electricity Distribution Division Uttarakashi), the present applicant, being posted as an Executive Engineer in Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, Uttarkashi Division, was arrested by the Team of Vigilance, headed by Inspector Mahipal Singh Pal on 16.1.2010 at about 4:05 PM from his office along with the amount of illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- which was demanded by the applicant-accused as 2% of the amount of the bills of the complainant (Rs.4,99,058 + 1,60,075) submitted in the office of the applicant, which he received from the complainant in lieu of releasing the payment of the pending bills. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the recovery and arrest is illegal inasmuch as the trap was laid on 16.1.2010 while the FIR was lodged on 17.1.2010 which shows that it was a preplanned trap. Further, the alleged bills of complainant had already been forwarded to Head Office 15- 20 days back by the present applicant, hence there was no occasion for the applicant to demand bribe. Per contra, learned Brief Holder argued that the applicant, being a public servant and an Executive Engineer with Electricity Department, Uttarakhand, has been arrested on the spot while receiving the amount of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification in lieu of payment of complainant’s bills. Further, there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and the applicant was caught red handed on the spot while taking the illegal gratification. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR, perusal of the counter affidavit and other papers available on record particularly considering the fact that the applicant was arrested on the spot while taking illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant, therefore, 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.) 17.03.2010 Rajeev Dang