Reserved on:08.04.2025 I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL Bail Application 1^st No.2556 of 2024 Bhagwati Prasad ......Applicant Vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation …..Respondent Presence Mr. Rajendra Kothiyal, Mr. Ravi Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel, for the CBI.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant, Bhagwati Prasad, seeking his release in FIR/CBI Case No. RC007202024A0010, dated 09.09.2024, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI, ACB, Dehradun.

2. The applicant, who was posted as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in LIC, Divisional Office, Dehradun, allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹57,000/- from the complainant, a civil contractor, in lieu of processing his pending bill and earlier cleared payments. Upon the complainant's request, the applicant agreed to reduce the bribe amount to ₹40,000/-.

3. A trap was subsequently laid by the CBI, during which the applicant was apprehended while accepting ₹15,000/- as part payment of the demanded bribe. The bribe money was recovered from the possession of the applicant, and the incident was captured in an audio-

visual recording.

4. It is further alleged that the pending bill of ₹22,690/- of the complainant was within the domain of the applicant for processing and approval, and the applicant was in a position to influence its clearance. 5. Heard learned counsel for the Parties andperused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire proceedings, commencing from the stage of preliminary verification, registration of the FIR, and laying of the trap, stand vitiated due to non-

compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.

7. It is contended that, as per the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, and the binding internal procedures prescribed under the CBI Manual (Chapter 9), it is mandatory for the Supervisory Officer to record his satisfaction before ordering a preliminary inquiry. In the present case, the Supervisory Officer failed to record such satisfaction prior to directing verification, thereby rendering the entire proceedings illegal and unsustainable.

8. It is further urged that the trap proceedings suffer from serious procedural irregularities. It is submitted that neither the date, time, nor place of the trap was properly mentioned in the Pre-Trap Memorandum, and there was no proper briefing of the trap team, thereby violating the Standard Operating Procedures prescribed by the CBI and judicially recognised protocols.

9. Learned counsel emphasised that there is no clear and categorical evidence of any demand for a bribe made by the applicant. It is submitted that the recorded conversations, when read as a whole, do not disclose any direct solicitation of a bribe by the applicant. On the contrary, it is asserted that the complainant attempted to provoke the applicant, and no demand was voluntarily made by the applicant.

10. It is contended that the acceptance of money has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Learned counsel submitted that at the time of alleged recovery, the applicant was neither caught red-handed nor was there any independent witness present at the moment of the alleged acceptance, thus rendering the CBI’s story doubtful at its inception.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated on account of personal enmity. It is asserted that the complainant had monetary liabilities towards the applicant arising out of a personal loan transaction unrelated to any official duty, and in order to avoid repayment, the complainant, in collusion with the investigating agency, fabricated the instant false case.

12. It is urged that the investigation conducted by the CBI is biased and one-sided. It is alleged that the investigating officer ignored material evidence favouring the applicant,