Yashwant Singh Chauhan v. State of Uttarakhand

State of Uttarakhand ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.07/09, U/Ss 7/13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Vigilance Sector, Dehradun Dated: March 26, 2010 Hon(cid:146)ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected on merits on 4.12.2009. In brief, the prosecution case is that the applicant, who is a Naib Tehsildar and a public servant, was caught red handed on the spot by the Team of Vigilance headed by Inspector Mahipal Singh on 28.5.2009 at about 6:35 PM from Pauri while receiving the bribe of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant Yashwant Singh Rauthan in lieu of not taking any action against the sons of the complainant as the applicant-accused was posted as the I.O. to investigate the case. The necessary formalities for conducting the trap, as provided under the Act, were also been fulfilled. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused has falsely been implicated in this case. On the other hand, Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State has submitted that the applicant/accused, being a public servant, demanded Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification and the applicant was caught red handed while taking bribe of Rs.15,000/-. He further submitted that the applicant, who was the I.O. in a case in which the sons of the complainant were the accused, had demanded the above-said money in a matter pending before him for doing the investigation in favour of the complainant. He further submitted that it is nothing but a misuse of the official position by the applicant. After the rejection of the first bail application of the accused, I find that no new ground has been taken in the present bail application and nor any new ground could be argued by the learned counsel for the application. As such, after considering all facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the contents of the FIR particularly considering the gravity of the offence that the applicant, being a public servant, demanded Rs.15,000/- for doing investigation in favour of the complainant and that he was caught red handed while taking the bribe, I do not find that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. Accordingly, the present second bail application is also rejected.

26.03.2010 Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.)