To establish an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove that the demand for an undue advantage was made prior to the performance of public duty.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Sequel to order dated 12.2.2024, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in case FIR No. 1 of 2024, dated 7.2.2024, registered at Police Station Vigilance, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short “the Act”), respondent-State has filed the status report.

2. Close scrutiny of record/status report made available to this Court reveals that complainant Smt. Geeta Devi, got her statement recorded under Section 154 CrPC, stating therein that her husband had ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2024 19:19:56 :::CIS expired in the year, 2019 and out of their wedlock, four children were born.

Marriage of her two daughters has already been solemnized, whereas her two sons are still unmarried. She reported to the police that she lives in the two storied house along with her sister-in-law (Jaithani), which is yet to be partitioned. She reported that in 2023, two rooms falling in her share in the building were completely damaged on account of heavy rains and as such, she applied for help to the Government. She alleged that Kanungo alongwith Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and Ward Member visited the spot and thereafter, she after having prepared documents for compensation handed over the same to the present bail petitioner Rajesh Bimal. She alleged that on 19.12.2023, she received first installment of Rs. 3.00 lac in her bank account, but on the same day, bail petitioner called her on mobile phone and asked her to give him Rs. 50,000/-. She alleged that above named bail petitioner also told her to give Rs.50,000/- on receipt of next installment of Rs. 4.00 lac. Complainant alleged that though repeteadly, she alongwith her son in law objected to the demand of the petitioner, but he insisted and as such, she after having withdrawn Rs. 1.00 lac from her account, gave Rs. 50,000/- to the bail petitioner. She alleged that since repeated demands were being made by the bail petitioner, she brought the matter to the notice of vigilance department, whereafter the bail petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2024 19:19:56 :::CIS started exerting pressure upon her to withdraw the complaint through Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. She alleged that bail petitioner also refunded Rs. 24,000/- through Google-Pay to her son in law. She alleged that thereafter on 5.2.2024, while she had gone to Dharampur, bail petitioner alongwith Ex-President Kamlesh returned Rs. 25,000/- in cash. In the aforesaid background, case under Section 7 of the Act, came to be registered against the petitioner.

3. Before petitioner could be arrested in the case as detailed herein above, this Court vide order dated 12.2.2024 enlarged him on interim bail subject to his joining investigation. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, prayer has been made for confirmation of interim order dated 2.2.2024.

4. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to petitioner’s having joined the investigation pursuant to order dated 12.2.2024, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that though challan is yet to be filed in the competent court of law, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed, he does not deserve any leniency, rather needs to be dealt with in accordance with law. While making this Court peruse various documents adduced on record, Mr.

::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2024 19:19:57 :::CIS Kahol, states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner while taking undue advantage of the complainant, pressurized her to give Rs.50,000/-. He submitted that bare factum with regard to refund of money by the petitioner, subsequently after lodging of the FIR, itself proves factum with regard to illegal demand.

5. To the contrary, Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior counsel appearing for the bail petitioner, vehemently argued that as per own case of the com