Krishan Kumar Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

Heard on the second bail application of the accused applicant Shri Krishan Kumar Singh, who was apprehended by the Vigilance Department of the State red handed at the time of accepting the Rupees Ten Thousand as bribe from his sub-ordinate Nayab Tehsilar Mr. Kamleshwar Prasad Nautiyal in lieu of favourably forwarding his Character Roll Dossier ahead to the District Collector, Uttarkashi. Self assessment by concern Nayab Tehsildar for the Financial Year 2015-16 had been submitted in the office of accused applicant on 02.4.2016 i.e. just a day after the financial year is closed.

The accused had sent the ACRs of other sub- ordinates but, such ACR of Mr. Nautiyal was kept detained for months together till Mr. Nautiyal persuaded him for the purpose. The accused applicant expressed his intentions that the ACRs could be sent only after rendering some service to him and more so, when one year had been elapsed after taking the promotion by Mr. Nautiyal and no service could be rendered in return to the applicant on that score too.

Somehow, the matter was settled for the consideration of Rs. 10,000/- but before offering such bribe Mr. Nautiyal approached the superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Dehradun and raid was organized. The SDM arrested red handed while accepting such amount of bribe from Mr. Nautiyal.

His first bail application has been rejected by this court on 27.01.2017. The learned counsel has argued that nowhere it has been described indicating the denomination of the currency notes. Such argument is beyond the record because first information report clearly explicit that there were twenty currency notes, each of Rs. 500/- denomination. Further, it has been argued that the number of currency notes has not been indicated. I think such arguments do not have any substance and there was no necessity of indicating the number of each currency notes in the first information report.

It has further been argued that the call details of the log book of the Jeep of the SDM does not explicate his presence in Purola, Uttarkahsi, the workplace of the SDM.

I think such log books are not usually filled up by the drivers of the concern vehicle with all disciplines regularly. So, it is not reliable at all and more so, it is not decisive regarding the absence of the officer from his workplace nonetheless the presence of his vehicle shortly at some other place nearby.

Likewise, the call details also are to be scrutinized in the Trial Court. This is not the proper forum at this stage. Rest of the merits has already been considered by this court at the time of rejection of the first bail application. The arguments of the learned counsel that charge sheet has been submitted and there is no chance of tampering the evidence, I think this contention also does

not have any substance for the reason that after coming out from the jail, it shall make whole circumstances propitious for influential culprit for tampering of the evidence before the witnesses are, infact examined in the dock of the court.

All told, I do not find any force in this bail application. The bail application thus rejected.