State of Uttarakhand v. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Learned counsel for the

Shubham Anand, aged 30 years, son of Shri Girish Kumar Anand, resident of House No. 8, Bhajan Ashram-3, Tilak Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, who stands applicant in FIR No. 218/2024 registered at Police Station Rajpur, Dehradun under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).

3. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the records. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case due to personal vendetta or ulterior motives. It was urged that there is no direct material on record to indicate that the applicant had ever demanded or accepted any illegal gratification from the complainant Manoj Thakral. 1

4. It is pointed out that there is no conversation, telephonic exchange, or personal interaction between the applicant and the complainant. He further submitted that the FIR itself does not attribute any specific act of bribery or demand to the applicant, and thus, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not made out.

5. It was further stressed that the applicant is not a government servant but rather a private contractual employee working with ILEADS Auxiliary Services Pvt. Ltd., and therefore, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be attracted against him.

6. It was further argued that the investigation has already culminated in the filing of the chargesheet, and there is no further requirement of custodial interrogation. No recovery or further investigation remains pending from the applicant, and hence, his continued incarceration serves no legal purpose.

7. It was submitted that the evidence against the applicant is primarily documentary in nature and in the custody of the investigating agency, making the possibility of tampering negligible. It was also argued that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, poses no flight risk, and has cooperated during the investigation.

8. Alleging procedural lapses, counsel stated that the arrest was made in violation of the safeguards laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar AIR 2014 SC 2756, as no notice under Section 41A CrPC was served to the applicant before the arrest. Emphasis was also laid on the fact that the alleged offence carries a maximum punishment of seven years, which makes the applicant entitled to bail under the settled parameters of law. 2

9. In rebuttal, the learned Brief Holder for the state, Mr. Rakesh Negi vehemently opposed the bail application, asserting that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and involve the misuse of a government grievance redressal platform, namely the CM Helpline 1905.

10. It was submitted that on the basis of credible and confidential information received by SOG Dehradun, a trap was laid which revealed that certain individuals, including the applicant, were demanding bribes from complainants using fake assurances of resolving their grievances posted on the Chief Minister’s public portal.

11. The complainant, Manoj Thakral, had made a genuine grievance regarding non-payment of salary, and subsequently, a bribe of ₹2500 was demanded through a QR code sent to his WhatsApp by a person associated with the mobile number linked to the applicant. The investigation confirmed that the said mobile number was in the name of the applicant and that he was working in the helpline system, thereby misusing his position for personal gain.

12. It was further contended that sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been duly obtained by the Uttarakhand Government vide order dated 19.09.2024. The misuse of a public platform to extract money from poor and unsuspecting complainants, coupled with the fact that the QR code used for the transaction carried a pseudonymous name linked to the applicant’s number, creates strong prima facie evidence of complicity.

13. The court was also apprised of the risk of the applicant influencing witnesses or attempting to derail the trial if released on bail. Therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the offence, its impact on public trust, and the socio-institutional ramifications, the State urged the court to reject the bail application. 3

14. After careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the materials on record, this Court notes that the allegations against the applicant are of a serious nature.

15. The offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act strike at the heart of public service delivery systems and erode public trust in governmental institutions. The applicant is alleged to have misused his position at the CM Helpline to extort money from vulnerable citizens seeking assistance through official channels.

16. While the applicant contends that he is not a government employee but a contractual worker, the Court observes that the Prevention of Corruption Act's provisions can extend to any person performing public duty, and working at a government helpline charged with addressing citizens' grievances would prima facie constitute performance of public duty regardless of the nature of employment.

17. The Court finds the State's case to be supported by substantial evidence at this stage, including the tracing of the QR code to the mobile number belonging to the applicant, the official sanction for prosecution granted by the Uttarakhand Government, and the statement of the complainant.

18. The Court is not convinced by the applicant's contention that the absence of direct conversation between him and the complainant exonerates him, as the alleged modus operandi involved the use of intermediaries and digital payment methods specifically to create distance between the primary beneficiary and the complainant.

19. The argument that no money was found in the applicant's account is similarly unconvincing at this preliminary stage, as fund transfers can be quickly forwarded to other accounts or withdrawn. 4

20. With respect to the procedural arguments raised by the applicant regarding the absence of notice under Section 41A CrPC and lack of prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court notes that the State has submitted that government sanction for prosecution was indeed obtained on September 19, 2024.

21. As for the Section 41A notice, given the nature of the offense involving digital evidence that could be easily destroyed and the need for immediate action to prevent further victimisation of citizens, the exception to the notice requirement appears to have been justifiably invoked by the investigating authorities.

22. The Court is particularly concerned about the nature of the offense which undermines the integrity of government initiatives designed to help common citizens. The CM Helpline was established to provide accessible grievance redressal to the public, especially the underprivileged.

23. Any attempt to monetise this service for personal gain represents a severe breach of public trust and defeats the very purpose of such initiatives. The alleged victim in this case is described as a "poor person" working at a restaurant who was seeking help for non-payment of salary, precisely the vulnerable demographic such helplines are meant to assist without additional financial burden.

24. In State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that economic offences and cases involving corruption must be dealt with stringently, as they erode public confidence in governance. Even post-filing of the chargesheet, bail may be refused if the offence undermines institutional integrity and public trust. 5

25. While the applicant has been in custody since September 21, 2024, and the charge sheet has been filed, the gravity of the offense and its impact on public confidence in government services cannot be overlooked. The Court is not satisfied that the applicant, if released on bail at this stage, would not attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, particularly given the digital nature of communications involved and the applicant's familiarity with the operational procedures of the CM Helpline.

26. The Supreme Court has consistently held that while liberty is precious, it is not absolute and must be balanced against societal interests and the severity of the offence. In cases involving corruption and breach of public trust, courts must exercise added caution in granting bail, especially during the early stages of trial. ORDER Therefore, considering the totality of circumstances, the serious nature of the allegations against the applicant, the potential impact on witnesses and the course of investigation if the applicant is released, and the overarching public interest in ensuring that corruption in public service delivery is addressed with due seriousness, this Court is not satisfied that a case for grant of bail is made out at this stage. Accordingly, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application hereby stands rejected. Dated:08.04.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) 6