HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL v. Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.S. Mishra

been falsely implicated. It is contended that the F.I.R. rests on false and fabricated allegations. As per the prosecution, the alleged demand of illegal gratification was made to the complainant, who is serving as a Stenographer the Judgeship at Dehradun. However, in his complaint dated 02.05.2025 addressed to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Haldwani, the complainant alleged that the applicant had called him to the office on 09.05.2025 and demanded ₹1,20,000/-, a version inconsistent with the earlier allegations.

6. It is further submitted that the alleged demand was made at the behest of the co-accused Dinesh Kumar Rana, the competent authority to sign the ACP files, while the alleged payment was attributed to the present applicant. The applicant, being an Accountant, had no authority or role in 3 either approving or signing the ACP files. The prosecution has failed to produce any independent witness from the Treasury Office to corroborate the alleged recovery of illegal gratification. It is also argued that the alleged recovery was shown from an Almirah in the Treasury Office that was commonly used by other officials and not exclusively by the applicant.

7. Learned counsel further contends that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for establishing an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the absence of such proof, the charge cannot be sustained. Mere possession or recovery of currency notes, without proof of demand, is insufficient to constitute an offence under the Act. Reliance is placed upon several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been consistently held that the element of demand is an indispensable requirement conviction under Section 7 of the Act and that mere recovery, de hors demand and acceptance, cannot establish guilt.

8. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody

09.05.2025. twenty-five prosecution witnesses have been cited, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. The charge sheet has already been filed; hence, there is no possibility of tampering with evidence. The applicant is a Government Servant and a permanent resident of Uttarakhand, and there is no likelihood of his 4 absconding.

9. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the complainant was compelled to pay an undue advantage of ₹1,20,000/-, which was demanded and accepted by the applicant. It is argued that the offence is grave, being one of corruption in public office, and concerns an employee attached to the District Court. The Investigating Officer, after collecting sufficient evidence, has submitted the charge sheet against the applicant.

10. Learned State Counsel further contends that the recovery was effected from the Almirah in the applicant’s office. It is argued that, if released on bail, the applicant may influence witnesses, most of whom are government employees and police officials. It is further stated that there is sufficient material to prove the alleged demand, and that the voice recording of the purported conversation has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the report of which is awaited. However, it is admitted that the applicant is in custody since 09.05.2025 and that the 25 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.

11. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, it appears that the essential element of demand of illegal gratification, which is indispensable for constituting an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is not clearly established at this stage. The allegation of demand rests primarily upon the statement of the complainant, while the recovery, as per the trap and 5 recovery memos, was made from the Almirah of the office and not from the personal possession of the applicant.

12. It is also observed that the charge sheet has been filed and the applicant has remained in custody since 09.05.2025. The trial is expected to take time as 25 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. The applicant is a permanent resident of Uttarakhand, a Government Servant with no criminal antecedents, and there is no material to suggest that he is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.

13. Considering these facts and the settled law that proof of demand is a necessary condition for establishing an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that continued detention of the applicant during the pendency of the trial would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail.

14. Accordingly, the 1st bail application allowed.

15. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Mam t a ( A LOK M A H RA , J.) 17.10.2025 6