IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that evidence of demand and recovery of a bribe is critical in bail applications under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :

Applicant Trilochan Suyal is in judicial custody in FIR No.8 of 2023, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Vigilance Sector, Haldwani, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. A person named Dwarika Prasad was an agriculturist. He had sown crop in his agricultural field, but there was some dispute. He wanted to reap it. He moved an application to the SDM, who passed an order that the person, who had sown the crop, may only reap it. The matter came to the applicant, who was the Revenue Sub Inspector. It is case of the complainant Dwarika Prasad that in order to give a report, the applicant demanded Rs. 10,000/-. He also involved Summar Singh, the Village Pradhan, so that the money may be given to him. Finally, it was settled at Rs. 8,000/-. The entire conversation was recorded. Subsequently, a trap was laid on 26.10.2023, when, according to the prosecution, the applicant demanded Rs. 8,000/-, which was given to him, which he kept in a register on the table. It was recovered, and a post trap memo was prepared. The hand wash turned pink.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a false case; the applicant had already submitted its report on 19.04.2023, therefore, there was no occasion to demand the money for the purpose. He would also submit that in the post trap memo, reference has been made to the transcript prepared earlier, but he would submit that there is no mention of any transcript in the pre-trap memo, which, it is argued, doubts the credibility of the post trap memo. Referring to the transcript, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it did not reveal that any demand was made by the applicant from Dwarika Prasad, and, in fact, it is argued that the transcript does not reveal that any demand was ever made.

5. In addition to it, it is also argued that the recovery was made from the register of the Review Sub-Inspector Jagdish Singh, therefore, applicant cannot be fastened with any criminal liability for that purpose.

6. Learned State Counsel would submit that on the complaint of Dwarika Prasad that the applicant was demanding money, a trap was laid. The earlier demand made by the applicant was recorded. The transcript is also on record. He would submit that the applicant demanded money, which was recovered, and the hand wash turned pink.

7. 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.

8. The transcript of earlier conversation, by which the applicant allegedly demanded money, is Annexure No.2 to the counter affidavit. According to it, it was prepared in the presence of the trap team on the date of trap itself. In the post trap memo, it is recorded that the transcript prepared at the spot earlier was used for taking voice sample of the applicant. At this stage, it cannot be said that the transcript was not prepared before these lines were recorded in the post trap memo. The post trap memo records that the applicant demanded money, which was given to him. He took it in a register, in which there was a slip of Revenue Sub Inspector Jagdish Singh, but all the witnesses have stated that the applicant demanded money and kept it in that register. His hand wash turned pink. There is a transcript. The Court does not intend to scrutinise it in detail.

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

10. The bail application is rejected.