Uttarakhand High Court
Bhagwati Prasad vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 2 May, 2025
2025:UHC:3403
Reserved on:08.04.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Bail Application 1st No.2556 of 2024
Bhagwati Prasad ......Applicant
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Rajendra Kothiyal, Mr. Ravi Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel, for the CBI.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant,
Bhagwati Prasad, seeking his release in FIR/CBI Case No.
RC007202024A0010, dated 09.09.2024, registered under Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI, ACB,
Dehradun.
2. The applicant, who was posted as an Assistant Engineer
(Electrical) in LIC, Divisional Office, Dehradun, allegedly demanded a
bribe of ₹57,000/- from the complainant, a civil contractor, in lieu of
processing his pending bill and earlier cleared payments. Upon the
complainant's request, the applicant agreed to reduce the bribe amount
to ₹40,000/-.
3. A trap was subsequently laid by the CBI, during which the
applicant was apprehended while accepting ₹15,000/- as part payment
of the demanded bribe. The bribe money was recovered from the
possession of the applicant, and the incident was captured in an audio-
visual recording.
1
Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad....Vs......... CBI-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3403
4. It is further alleged that the pending bill of ₹22,690/- of the
complainant was within the domain of the applicant for processing and
approval, and the applicant was in a position to influence its clearance.
5. Heard learned counsel for the Parties andperused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire
proceedings, commencing from the stage of preliminary verification,
registration of the FIR, and laying of the trap, stand vitiated due to non-
compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.
7. It is contended that, as per the directions laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar
Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, and the binding internal procedures
prescribed under the CBI Manual (Chapter 9), it is mandatory for the
Supervisory Officer to record his satisfaction before ordering a
preliminary inquiry. In the present case, the Supervisory Officer failed
to record such satisfaction prior to directing verification, thereby
rendering the entire proceedings illegal and unsustainable.
8. It is further urged that the trap proceedings suffer from serious
procedural irregularities. It is submitted that neither the date, time, nor
place of the trap was properly mentioned in the Pre-Trap
Memorandum, and there was no proper briefing of the trap team,
thereby violating the Standard Operating Procedures prescribed by the
CBI and judicially recognised protocols.
9. Learned counsel emphasised that there is no clear and categorical
evidence of any demand for a bribe made by the applicant. It is
submitted that the recorded conversations, when read as a whole, do not
disclose any direct solicitation of a bribe by the applicant. On the
contrary, it is asserted that the complainant attempted to provoke the
applicant, and no demand was voluntarily made by the applicant.
10. It is contended that the acceptance of money has not been proved
beyond a reasonable doubt. Learned counsel submitted that at the time
2
Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad....Vs......... CBI-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3403
of alleged recovery, the applicant was neither caught red-handed nor
was there any independent witness present at the moment of the alleged
acceptance, thus rendering the CBI's story doubtful at its inception.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was falsely
implicated on account of personal enmity. It is asserted that the
complainant had monetary liabilities towards the applicant arising out
of a personal loan transaction unrelated to any official duty, and in
order to avoid repayment, the complainant, in collusion with the
investigating agency, fabricated the instant false case.
12. It is urged that the investigation conducted by the CBI is biased
and one-sided. It is alleged that the investigating officer ignored
material evidence favouring the applicant, including the financial
dealings between the parties and the communications sent by the
applicant, highlighting the poor quality of work executed by the
complainant's firm.
13. It is argued that the essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, namely, 'demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing or
forbearing to do an official act', are not established against the
applicant even prima facie.
14. It is further urged that the alleged recovery of bribe money from
the possession of the applicant is doubtful, as the memo of recovery is
stated to have been prepared in violation of mandatory safeguards, as
the alleged recovery was not effected in the presence of truly
independent witnesses.
15. Learned counsel submitted that the provisions of Section 17A of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandate prior approval for
investigation against public servants, were not complied with before
undertaking investigation against the applicant, thereby vitiating the
proceedings.
3
Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad....Vs......... CBI-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3403
16. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant
has an unblemished service record of long years and has never been
implicated in any criminal offence earlier. It is submitted that the
applicant has deep roots in society and is not a flight risk.
17. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant has been languishing in
judicial custody since 11.09.2024, and that further incarceration would
serve no useful purpose as the evidence is documentary in nature and
the investigation is complete, with the charge sheet already filed.
18. Learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation opposed
the bail application and submitted that the applicant was apprehended
red-handed while demanding and accepting bribe money from the
complainant. It is contended that the trap proceedings were duly
conducted in accordance with law after following the requisite
procedural safeguards.
19. It is submitted that the preliminary verification was conducted
strictly within the legal framework, and only after corroborating the
allegations made in the complaint through discreetly recorded
conversations, a regular case was registered against the applicant. The
preliminary inquiry was not equivalent to a registration of an FIR, and
the directions given for verification were lawful and proper.
20. Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that the demand for a
bribe is clearly established from the recorded conversations between
the applicant and the complainant. It is argued that during the
verification exercise as well as during subsequent trap proceedings, the
applicant reiterated his demand for illegal gratification and agreed to
accept ₹40,000/- as bribe, reduced from an earlier demand of ₹57,000/-.
21. It is further contended that the acceptance of ₹15,000/- as part
payment towards the demanded bribe amount was clearly captured in
the audio recording. The incident was duly witnessed by independent
public servants who have affirmed the recovery proceedings.
4
Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad....Vs......... CBI-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3403
22. Learned counsel submitted that the recovery of the tainted bribe
money from the possession of the applicant was effected immediately
after the trap (the money was in the Applicant's left hand when the CBI
officers entered the compound). And the trap proceedings have been
thoroughly documented through pre-trap and post-trap memoranda
prepared in the presence of independent witnesses, whose accounts
corroborate the CBI's version.
23. It is further contended that the defence raised by the applicant
alleging personal financial dealings with the complainant is an
afterthought, not disclosed either during trap proceedings or in the
course of the initial investigation. No credible material has been
brought to record to support the theory of personal loan transactions.
24. Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that the applicant's
reliance upon alleged procedural defects and technicalities does not
dilute the core evidentiary material against him, particularly when there
exists substantive evidence demonstrating demand, acceptance, and
recovery of bribe money.
25. It is urged that the alleged violation of Section 17A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act is misconceived in the present case, as no
prior approval is necessary where a public servant is caught red-handed
in the act of accepting illegal gratification.
26. Learned counsel further submitted that the offence committed by
the applicant is grave and strikes at the integrity of public institutions. It
is contended that considering the gravity of the offence and the
possibility of the applicant influencing material witnesses, particularly
the complainant who is yet to testify, the applicant does not deserve to
be enlarged on bail at this stage.
27. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is facing serious charges
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and his release on bail would
5
Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad....Vs......... CBI-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3403
adversely affect the fair trial of the case. Accordingly, it is prayed that
the bail application be dismissed.
28. Before advertising to the rival contentions, it is apposite to
observe that at the stage of considering an application for bail, the
Court is not required to examine the entire evidence in detail or to
conduct a mini-trial. The Court must assess whether a prima facie case
exists against the applicant, the nature and gravity of the allegations,
the likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing
witnesses, and the overall interests of justice. The presumption of
innocence, though fundamental, must be balanced against the societal
interest in prosecuting grave offences, particularly those involving
corruption.
29. The applicant has sought to challenge the very foundation of the
case on the ground that the preliminary verification conducted by the
CBI was irregular and lacked proper authorisation. However, on a
perusal of the record, it is evident that the Supervisory Officer
Sh. Sharad Singh Gusain of the CBI had directed a discreet verification
prior to registration of the FIR, which is consistent with the established
practice in trap cases. It is well settled that preliminary verification
prior to registration of a case is permissible and, in fact, desirable in
matters involving allegations of demand for illegal gratification.
30. The reliance placed by the applicant on alleged procedural lapses
in the preliminary inquiry is misplaced. As held in State of Telangana v.
Managipet, (2020) 3 SCC 474, mere irregularities in the conduct of
preliminary enquiry do not, by themselves, vitiate a criminal
prosecution if the subsequent investigation discloses the commission of
a cognisable offence.
31. In the present case, the recording of conversations during
verification, which prima facie corroborate the allegations, and the
subsequent registration of a regular case, do not disclose any illegality
6
Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad....Vs......... CBI-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3403
fatal to the case. This Court is, therefore, not persuaded to accept the
applicant's contention in this regard.
32. Furthermore, the heart of the CBI's case lies in the allegation of
demand and acceptance of a bribe under section 7 of PMLA. The
applicant contends that he made no explicit demand and that the
conversations relied upon have been misconstrued.
33. However, on a prima facie examination of the transcript, it
appears that the applicant did reiterate the demand for illegal
gratification. The applicant agreed to accept ₹40,000/- as 'commission',
reduced from the original demand of ₹57,000/-, and insisted upon part
payment of ₹15,000/-, which was subsequently received.
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v.
District Inspector of Police, (2015) 10 SCC 152, emphasised that the
demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for the offence under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the present case, at
least at the stage of consideration for bail, sufficient material exists to
indicate prima facie demand and acceptance.
35. The applicant has sought to assail the recovery proceedings by
alleging procedural lapses and the absence of independent witnesses at
the moment of acceptance.
36. However, the record demonstrates that the trap team included
independent public witnesses. Ravi Nandan Singh and Sh. Rakesh
Kumar, who has corroborated the sequence of events.
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal
Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364, observed that corruption cases
must be approached with sensitivity to the larger public interest
involved. At this stage, the evidentiary material satisfies the test of
prima facie satisfaction.
7
Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad....Vs......... CBI-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3403
38. The applicant has sought to raise a defence of prior financial
transactions with the complainant, suggesting that the monetary
exchange was unrelated to official duties.
39. This defence, however, appears to have been raised for the first
time during the course of bail proceedings. There is no reference to
such a defence either during the trap proceedings or the initial
investigation. No contemporaneous material substantiating such
financial dealings of the said amount has been produced.
40. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v.
Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, defences which require detailed
appreciation of evidence cannot ordinarily be a ground for the grant of
bail in severe corruption cases.
41. In the considered view of this Court, the plea of personal loan is
an afterthought and cannot dilute the CBI's case at the stage of
considering bail.
42. Additionally, in this regard, reference may be made to the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v.
District Inspector of Police, (2015) 10 SCC 152, where it was
emphasised that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification
constitute the sine qua non for the offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act; State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji
Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364, where the Court underscored the need to
approach corruption cases with sensitivity to the larger public interest;
and State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, wherein it was
observed that defences requiring detailed appreciation of evidence
should not ordinarily weigh at the stage of considering bail in serious
corruption cases. Applying these settled principles to the facts of the
present case, this Court finds no ground to interfere.
8
Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad....Vs......... CBI-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3403
43. The applicant has also alleged that the investigation was
undertaken without obtaining prior approval as mandated under Section
17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
44. This submission is noted only to be rejected. As clarified by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vivek Batra v. CBI, (2020) 8 SCC 712, no
prior sanction under Section 17A is necessary where a public servant is
caught red-handed accepting illegal gratification during trap
proceedings.
45. In the present case, the applicant was apprehended during the
commission of the offence. Hence, the protection under Section 17A is
not attracted.
46. The offence alleged against the applicant strikes at the integrity
of public institutions and undermines public trust. The allegations are
serious and involve abuse of official position for personal gain.
47. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, to contend that the
overarching principle of law is that bail is the rule and jail is the
exception. It was submitted that prolonged incarceration infringes the
applicant's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution,
particularly when the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has
already been filed.
48. In further support of the prayer for bail, learned counsel placed
reliance on Sandeep Kumar v. State (Central Bureau of Investigation),
(2023) 4 SCC 673, and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that undue delay in trial proceedings may tilt the balance in
favor of the accused, especially where custody is prolonged and
evidence is largely documentary.
9
Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad....Vs......... CBI-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3403
49. Per contra, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of
Investigation submitted that the judgments relied upon by the applicant
do not advance his case. It was urged that Satender Kumar Antil lays
down broad principles of bail, but simultaneously preserves the
discretion of the Court to deny bail in serious and grave offences, such
as those involving corruption and breach of public trust. It was
contended that Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and Sandeep Kumar
themselves underscore the need for greater circumspection while
granting bail in corruption cases, where societal interest weighs heavily
against the release of the accused.
50. This Court has carefully considered the judgments cited on behalf
of the applicant. In Satender Kumar Antil (supra), while the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental principles favouring the
grant of bail, it also categorically held that offences involving serious
economic crimes, corruption, and abuse of official position may
warrant a stricter approach, depending on the facts of each case.
51. Similarly, the decision in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra)
emphasises that in corruption cases involving abuse of public office
and large-scale misappropriation of funds, the grant of bail must be
approached with great caution, keeping in view the larger public
interest, the nature of the allegations, and the impact on the integrity of
public administration.
52. And, in Sandeep Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
while reiterating the need for expeditious trial, held that where there is
substantial material indicating the commission of serious offences,
particularly those affecting public trust, the grant of bail cannot be
automatic merely on account of the custody period.
53. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments to
the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the allegations against
the applicant pertain to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification
10
Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad....Vs......... CBI-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:3403
in discharge of his official duties, supported by corroborative material
including recorded conversations, recovery of tainted money, and
forensic confirmation. The material prima facie indicates a serious
offence affecting the integrity of public institutions.
54. In the totality of facts and circumstances, therefore, the reliance
placed by the applicant on the cited judgments does not come to his aid,
and no special or mitigating circumstance exists to warrant deviation
from the settled principle against the grant of bail in serious corruption
cases.
55. In addition to the above, it would be apposite to observe that at
the stage of considering bail, where prima facie material exists
demonstrating the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the
exercise of discretion must be approached with great circumspection.
The societal interest in ensuring the integrity of public institutions must
weigh against the release of an accused facing grave charges under the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
ORDER
Balancing all relevant considerations -- including the gravity of
the allegations, the nature of material available on record, the stage of
trial, the likelihood of the applicant influencing material witnesses, and
the larger public interest involved, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this
stage.
Accordingly, the bail is rejected.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
02.05.2025
NR/
Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad....Vs......... CBI-
Ashish Naithani J.
