BAIL APPLICATION No. 993 of 2012 · Uttarakhand High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Judgment
Sanjeev Mehrotra S/o Shri Ramchandra Mehrotra, R/o Biswa, District Sitapur, U.P. Presently R/o Mohalla Subhash Nagar, P.S. Bajpur, District‐Udham Singh Nagar. (cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)Applicant (in Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home Civil Secretariat, Dehradun (cid:133)(cid:133)...(cid:133)(cid:133) Opposite Party igilance Circle, Sector Haldwani, District‐Nainital. Case Crime No. 1 of 2012 Under Section 7/13 (1) (d) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station‐ V Shri S.K. Mandal, Advocate, present for the applicant. Shri Vijay Khandauri, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon(cid:146)ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) Applicant‐Sanjeev Mehrotra, who is in jail in connection with Case Crime No. 1 of 2012, relating to offence punishable under Section 7/13 (1) (d) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police 2 Station‐ Vigilance Circle, Sector Haldwani, District‐ Nainital, has sought his release on bail. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity with the Shahadad Husain, who made a false allegation against the present applicant. It is further submitted that on behalf of the Nagar Palika, Gadarpur, of which the present applicant is an Executive Officer had issued notices against the Shahadad Husain for illegal construction over public land. It is further stated that the applicant in jail since May 2012. 4) Having heard learned counsel applicant, learned counsel for the State, and going through the papers on record without expressing any opinion, as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail. 5) The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant‐Sanjeev Mehrotra, be released on bail executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned.
08.10.2012 (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.