Inderjeet Singh Rana vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Inderjeet Singh Rana is in judicial custody in FIR No.03 of 2023, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Thana-Sector Vigilance, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Complainant Mohd. Akhlakh was involved in a criminal case. He had got stay from the High Court . Applicant was the Investigating Officer of the case. According to Mohd. Akhlakh, the applicant demanded Rs. 20,000/- from him, which, according to him, allegedly the applicant received due to criminal act done by him, in which he was involved. Mohd. Akhlakh was not willing to pay illegal gratification. Therefore, he lodged a complaint with the Vigilance. A trap was laid on 16.04.2023. The applicant received Rs. 20,000/-. He was caught red handed. The hand wash turned pink. In fact, according to the prosecution, Mohd. Akhlakh had also recorded the conversation, which he and the applicant had, when the applicant demanded money from him.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant had no occasion to demand any money; he had already issued a notice under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) to Mohd. Akhlakh; according to Mohd. Akhlakh himself, he had obtained a stay order from the High Court. It, according to learned Senior Counsel, belies the entire prosecution case. Reference has been made to the transcript of the telephonic conversation to argue that, in fact, it does not reveal any demand of money, instead, it reflects as if the applicant was redirecting Mohd. Akhlakh to see recourse to law.

Learned State Counsel would submit that it is a case of trap; there is a whole transcript.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

The transcript is quite lengthy, but it also reveals that the applicant had demanded Rs. 20,000/-. He has also given some time to Mohd. Akhlakh to pay the money. Pre-trap and post-trap memo was made. Money was allegedly taken by the applicant and he was caught red handed. As stated, the hand wash turned pink.

Having considered, this Court does not see any reason, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.