Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4962 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 October, 2025

                                                       2025:UHC:9390



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
         First Bail Application No. 1041 of 2025
                        17th October, 2025



Basant Kumar Joshi                               ...........Applicant
                               Versus

State Of Uttarakhand                            .......Respondent

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.S. Mishra,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General along with
Mr. Deepak Bhardwarj, learned
Ms. Prabha Naithaini, learned counsel for the complainant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.

Applicant - Basant Kumar Joshi, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 04 of 2025, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), registered at Police Station Vigilance Establishment Centre Haldwani, District Nainital has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is alleged that, on the basis of a trap memo, the aforesaid F.I.R. was registered against the applicant, who is serving as an Accountant in the Treasury Office, Nainital. It is further alleged that the applicant, along with four other employees posted as Personal Assistants in the Department, had

2025:UHC:9390 submitted an application to the District Judge, Nainital, seeking the benefit of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme. Acting upon the said application, the District Judge constituted a three- member committee comprising two senior judicial officers and the Chief Treasury Officer, Nainital. Upon examination and due signing of all service-related documents by the committee members, the files were sent to the Chief Treasury Officer for approval and signature as per the Rules. It is also alleged that subsequently, the complainant came to know that the Chief Treasury Officer was reluctant to sign the ACP files. On 29.04.2025, at around 09:01 and 09:02 p.m., two phone calls were received from an unknown number on the mobile phone of the complainant, which he could not answer. At around 09:08 p.m., the complainant returned the call and was informed by the caller, who identified himself as "Joshi," to meet him at 11:00 a.m. the next day at the CTO office regarding the ACP matter.

4. On 30.04.2025, at around 11:30 a.m., the complainant met the said Joshi, who is posted as Accountant in the Treasury Office, Nainital. It is alleged that Joshi informed the complainant that the Chief Treasury Officer was ready to sign the ACP files and that, as the total ACP amount came to around ₹5 to ₹6 lakhs, the CTO had demanded ₹50,000/- per person for signing the same. On 01.05.2025, the complainant again met Joshi at about 11:00-11:30 a.m., and when he expressed inability to pay such a huge amount, Joshi allegedly reduced the demand to

2025:UHC:9390 ₹40,000/- per person. On the complainant further refusing, Joshi allegedly conveyed that all six applicants together should pay ₹1.50 lakhs, stating that he was merely relaying the message of the CTO and had no personal concern, and that otherwise their work would not be processed. Subsequently, on 09.05.2025, a pre-trap memo was prepared and proceedings were initiated on the same day, forming the basis of the F.I.R. registered against the applicant. Based on the alleged trap, a recovery memo was prepared and other formalities were purportedly completed at the spot.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has 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 in 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

2025:UHC:9390 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 for 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 since 09.05.2025. the 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

2025:UHC:9390 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

2025:UHC:9390 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 is 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.

(ALOK MAHRA, J.) 17.10.2025 Mamta