Shiv Murti Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.11 of 2022, registered at police station Vigilance Sector, Dehradun, District Dehradun under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, “Act, 1988”).

As per prosecution, the father of the complainant had a license to operate a saw mill, issued by the Forest Department. The said license was transferred in the name of the complainant on 27.06.2022. The complainant formed a firm named Rishabh Trading Company for his son Rishabh to do wholesale business of wood. Present applicant was holding the post of Inspector, Mandi Samiti in Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Roorkee, District Haridwar. He asked the complainant to give him an amount of Rs.60,000/- for issuing him a license. Applicant informed the Vigilance, Dehradun. Based on the complaint, a trap was laid on 01.12.2022 and applicant was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs.30,000/-. Charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer.

Heard Mr. G.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing and Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

Mr. G.K. Sharma, Advocate, contended that the applicant did not demand any amount from the complainant, whereas, proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is sine quo non for establishing an offence under Section 7 of the Act, 1988. The competent authority has not applied his independent mind while granting sanction for prosecution. Applicant is in custody since 01.12.2022. He is a Government Servant, therefore, there is no likelihood of applicant absconding as well. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, and, the applicant has no criminal history.

On the other hand, Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, has opposed the bail application. He has submitted that during the investigation, witnesses are examined by the Investigating Officer and all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and sanction for prosecution has been accorded in accordance with law by the competent authority.

The object of keeping the accused person 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, there is no reason 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 Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant-Shiv Murti Singh 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 with the following conditions :-

i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he will 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 prior permission of the court concerned.

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