IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail ApplicationNo.411of2025 Shanti Bhandari. ………………… Applicant.

Versus State of Uttarakhand. ……………Respondents.

Present:

Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for Union of India.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. The instant bail application has been moved by the present applicant Smt. Shanti Bhandari W/o Diwan Singh seeking regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 09.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 0018 of 2024 P.S. Vigilance Sector Haldwani, District Nainital, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working as an Assistant Controller Legal Metrology (Weight and Measures) along with an additional charge of Senior Inspector Legal Metrology Department Kiccha.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and due to personal vendetta with Class-IV employees in the office of the applicant, which is evident from the letter dated 04.12.2024, which clearly shows that the applicant was threatened by one Hridesh Kumar, Lab Assistant, on several occasions and on that day he threatened the applicant to face dire consequences in future. He submits that the present case is nothing but a case of planted recovery as there was no any demand of taking bribe in lieu of some official work. He submits that the trap was conducted on a complaint of one Yogesh Tyagi and during trap proceeding the recording device was not turned on, which was admitted by the trap team that the recorder at the time of trap proceeding was switched off and nothing was captured. He further submits that there is no any independent eye witness since as per trap memo except the applicant and the complainant there was no one present in the office and even the shadow witness was standing outside the office thereby making the recovery doubtful. He further submits that as per the prosecution on arrival at the spot the trap team was divided in two teams and the person who made the complaint was directed to enter the office and as soon as he hand over the bribe he shall inform the complainant by saying ‘ok madam’ and the trap team enter in the office and when the team entered in the office a brown envelope was recovered from the drawer of the applicant consisting 20 currency notes of Rs. 500 amounting to Rs. 10,000/- and upon the phenolphthalein test the hands of the applicant turned pink and an arrest was made.

4. Mr. Aditya Singh argued that neither there is any proof of demand nor there is any proof of recovery. He also argued that the applicant inducted in the department in the year 1991 and her annual confidential report shows that she has an exemplary record during her tenure of 33 years and no complaint was ever been filed against her. He submits that there is no proof of demand and as such no offence is made out against the applicant.

5. Apart from this, he submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in which the Second Additional District Judge, Haldwani took cognizance on 05.02.2025. He submits that the applicant was arrested on 09.12.2024 and thereafter she was released on an interim bail and as such taking into consideration the custody period of the applicant she already served the incarceration for the period of more than 90 days. He further argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history. He submits that since the charge-sheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and be enlarged on bail. He further argued that the applicant was granted interim bail on 25.03.2025, which was extended time to time and the interim bail was never been misused by