Hansram Pant vs State Of Uttarakhand

This is the Second Bail Application.

The First Bail Application was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.07.2024 granting liberty to file a fresh bail application with better particulars.

The applicant – Hansram Pant is in judicial custody under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Case Crime No.6 of 2024, registered at Vigilance Establishment Sector, Dehradun.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant-Lakhpat Singh received a grant of Rs.50,000/ - for goat farming. The said amount was deposited in the bank account of the complainant. After that, the applicant demanded Rs.30,000/ - from the complainant. A complaint of Lakhpat Singh was received on the Toll Free Number 1064 of the Vigilance Establishment on 04.04.2024. The applicant again demanded Rs.30,000/ - through his mobile phone on 12.05.2024. On the basis of preliminary enquiry and the voice recording, provided by the complainant, a trap team was form ed. While conducting the trap in front of two independent witnesses, provided by the District Magistrate, Dehradun, the trap in-charge arrested the applicant while he was accepting Rs.15,000.00 as bribe from the complainant in Raj Hotel, Paithani Market, Pauri Garhwal at around 14.00 hrs on 21.05.2024.

Heard Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Applicant is the Van Daroga in the Forest Department. He did not demand any amount from the complainant, whereas proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is sine qua non for establishing an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 14.11.2024, Mr. V.K. Jemini, the then Deputy Advocate General for the State, submitted that the first demand was made by the applicant on 12.05.2024. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. submitted on 09.12.2024 that the first demand was made by the applicant prior to 12.05.2024, soon after receiving the money, which was deposited in the bank account of the complainant, while the Investigating Officer informed to the Court through his affidavit dated 16.12.2024 that the first demand was made prior to 04.04.2024, therefore, the case of the prosecution is highly doubtful.

Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate has further contended that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He is a Government Servant, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding as well. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, and, the applicant is in judicial custody since 22.05.2024.

Opposing the bail application, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. for the State has submitted that during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer collected sufficient material and on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, he filed charge-sheet against the applicant.

The object of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activities.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The Second Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant – Hansram Pant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions: -

i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.