JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

Applicant – Dinesh Kumar Rana, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 04 of 2025, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), registered at Police Station Vigilance Establishment, Sector Nainital, Haldwani, has sought his release on bail.

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

3. It is alleged that on the basis of a trap memo, the aforesaid F.I.R. was registered against the applicant, who is serving as Chief Treasury Officer, Nainital, and another co-accused, who is working as Accountant in the same Treasury Office. It is alleged that during the trap operation, conducted in the presence of complainant Kanta Prasad and shadow witnesses, the applicant was apprehended for allegedly accepting gratification to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/-. Based on the alleged raid, a trap memo was prepared, and other formalities were purportedly completed at the spot.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the F.I.R. has been lodged on false and fabricated allegations. According to the prosecution, the alleged demand for gratification was made to the complainant, who is serving as a Stenographer in the Judgeship at District Court, Dehradun. However, the complainant, in his complaint dated 02.05.2025 addressed to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Haldwani, alleged that the applicant and the co-accused had called him to the office on 09.05.2025 and demanded Rs.1,20,000/- for submitting a favourable report.

5. It is contended that there was no occasion for the applicant to demand any such gratification, as the complainant had already been extended the benefit of the staffing pattern and was therefore not entitled to the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP), in accordance with the relevant Government Orders. The complainant’s previous application for grant of ACP benefits had already been rejected by the duly constituted committee. Hence, there existed no cause or occasion for the applicant to demand any illegal gratification from the complainant. It is further submitted that the applicant has maintained an unblemished service record throughout his career and there is no adverse remark against him. The complaint was lodged on 02.05.2025, and without conducting any preliminary enquiry, the alleged trap was carried out on 09.05.2025, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story.

6. It is further argued that as per the contents of the F.I.R. and recovery memo, the complainant himself stated that the alleged amount was handed over to the co-accused, not to the present applicant. Nothing was recovered from the possession or at the pointing out of the applicant. This fact, it is urged, clearly indicates false implication. The alleged money was placed in a bag, and upon instructions during the trap, the same was placed on the table and counted by the shadow witnesses. Although the pre-trap memo mentions the denomination of the currency notes, it nowhere asserts that the same were recovered from the applicant. Rather, the recovery was shown from the Almirah of the co-accused, wherein apart from the alleged Rs.1,20,000/-, other articles were also recovered.

7. Learned counsel further submits that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the absence of such proof, the charge cannot stand. Mere possession or recovery of any amount, de hors the proof of demand, is insufficient to constitute an offence under the Act. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in a catena of judgments, has held that mere possession or recovery of currency notes without proof of demand does not establish an offence under the Act. The element of demand is an indispensable essentiality for sustaining co