Mohan Bohra vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 04 of 2024, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988, Police Station Vigilance Sector Haldwani, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The complainant Arif was constructing his house. He had taken electricity from his neighbour, but the officials from the Electricity Department had reported the matter to the police that the applicant is committing theft of the electricity. According to the prosecution, the applicant, who was Sub-Inspector of the police station at the relevant time, was entrusted with the inquiry. He called the complainant and demanded Rs.20,000/-, so as not to lodge an FIR and finally, he settled the case for Rs.4000/-. The complainant recorded his conversation. He was not willing to pay this amount. Therefore, he reported the matter to the Vigilance Department. On 30.01.2024, a trap was laid. The applicant took the money. He was caught red handed and the hand-wash turned pink.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that lodging or not lodging the FIR, is not the job of the applicant, it is an act of the Station House Officer. The applicant was not investigating the matter.

Learned State counsel would submit that it is the applicant, who called the complainant and demanded money for not lodging the FIR. She would submit that transcript was preserved by the complainant and in a trap, when the money demanded, it was recovered from the applicant and the hand-wash turned pink.

It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected of. To the extent of appreciating the controversy, the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation, made at this stage, shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.

Demanding money for discharge of the official duties is a very serious crime, which on the one hand, impedes the efficiency of the administration and on the other hand, it lowers the confidence of system in the common people. It is a case of demand and receipt of bribe. The applicant, according to the prosecution was caught red handed. The transcript of demand of money has been preserved. Money was taken by the applicant. His hand wash was turned pink.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. The bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.