Satpal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2345 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
        Second Bail Application No. 7 of 2022
                         In
             Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2021

Satpal Singh                                      ...Applicant

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand                             ...Respondent

Present:-
            Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
            Kaushal Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.
            Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, A.G.A. for the State..

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The appellant has been convicted under Section 7

and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced thereunder. In this

appeal preferred against his conviction, which is recorded in

Special Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2014, State Vs. Satpal singh,

by the court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption

Act)/1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, the

appellant moved second bail application.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through

video conferencing.

3. This is second bail application. The first bail

application was dismissed in non prosecution.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant would

submit that the victim did not support the prosecution case.

The victim, in her statement has categorically stated that the

appellant did not receive the money. The hand-wash, which

according to the prosecution was prepared soon after the

incident was white in colour and not pink, as alleged by the

prosecution. It is also argued that, in fact, during trial for

about 2-3 months the appellant was in custody and now he is

in custody for about 9 months. He has been sentenced to five

years imprisonment. Therefore, it is a case fit for bail.

5. It is a case of trap. The arguments which have

been advanced have already been discussed by the court

below in the impugned judgment. There are witnesses of pre-

trap, trap and post-trap.

6. It is true that when examined as PW5 Smt. Meera

Sonkar, she did not fully supported the prosecution case.

Particularly, according to her, when after all trap

preparations, she approached the appellant and told him that

she has brought money the appellant denied from taking it.

But, there are other witnesses of alleged handing over of

money by the victim PW5 Meera Sonkar to the appellant.

7. PW 1 Kewlanand Arya, PW2 Sheetal Shah and PW3

Uttam Singh Jimiwal have stated about it. According to all

the witnesses, when the hand of the appellant were washed

in the solution, the solution turned pink. In the recovery

memo the denomination of the currency notes were prepared,

which were subsequently recovered from the appellant.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it

is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the second bail

application deserves to be rejected.

9. The second bail application is rejected.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.07.2022 Jitendra