Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 909 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 9 May, 2024

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                      NAINITAL
            First Bail Application No. 2416 of 2023

Sandeep Kumar                                        .......Applicant

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand                             ........Respondent

Present:- Mr. Arvind Vasishtha, counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy A.G. for the State.

                                                       Dated : 09.05.2024

Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)

Applicant Sandeep Kumar, who is in judicial

custody in FIR/Case Crime No.7 of 2023, under Section 7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station

Vigilance Sector, District Dehradun has sought his release on

bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record available on file.

3. As per version of the F.I.R., the applicant/accused

was employed at District Co-operative Bank, Magrubpur,

Haridwar; that the applicant/accused demanded a bribe of

Rs.11,000/- per application to pass three loan applications;

that, as per the allegations, the applicant/accused was a

public servant who demanded illegal gratification of `33,000/-

from the victim and was caught red handed taking the money

of `4,000/-.

4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant would

submit that the applicant/accused is innocent and has falsely

been implicated in the instant case as there is no independent

witness to testify the demand of gratification; that, the

applicant/accused is languishing in jail since 22.09.2023;

that, the applicant/accused has no previous criminal history;

that, the version of post-trap memo is denied by the

applicant/accused.

5. To this, State counsel would submit that the

applicant/accused is a public servant who demanded illegal

gratification from the victim and was caught red handed

taking bribe.

6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel would further

submit that the applicant/accused is not covered under the

definition of 'public servant' and in support of his submission

he referred the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in

Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. P. Venku Reddy (2002)

7 SCC 631. He would further submit that Hon'ble Apex Court

in catena of judgments have held that if the accused person is

in jail for substantially long period and there is no possibility

to conclude the trial in near future, the bail application may

be considered, therefore, no purpose would be served by

keeping the applicant behind bars for indefinite time as the

trial is likely to take considerable time for completion.

7. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail

application, however, he is unable to make any submission to

assist the Court against the bail application of the

applicant/accused.

8. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion

on the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it

is a fit case for bail. The bail application is, accordingly,

allowed. Let the applicant/accused be released on bail, on

furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of Rs.

50,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the court concerned.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 09.05.2024 Mamta