The Uttarakhand High Court declined bail to the person involved in the case of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and held that “corruption in public life has not only weakened the confidence of a common man in the system but has also grossly affected the economy of this great nation.”
Brief Facts of the Case:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant had purchased the property from the legal heirs and then, the complainant and his brother sold the property to one satish and others. The applicant was Consolidation Lekhpal. He called the informant to his home and threatened to expose their methods for buying and selling the property. The applicant threatened the complainant, stating that he had been ordered to file a report against the complainant because he informed him that a case was ongoing in the Additional District Magistrate's court regarding the property that the complainant had sold.
Furthermore, the applicant demanded Rs. 1,75,000 from the complainant, Rs. 75,000 for the Additional District Magistrate Court reader, and Rs. 1,00,000 for himself to avoid filing the report. After that, the applicant and the complaint had several phone conversations. After the complainant reported the incident to the police, the applicant set up a trap and stole money. He placed it on his desk. He was apprehended without cause. The applicant filed the present bail application.
Contentions of the Parties:
The applicant contended that the brother of the complainant facilitated the trap. It was furthermore contended that the context of the money demand is not reflected in the conversation that the prosecution is relying on. Also, the money was not recovered from the applicant.
The respondent contended that after threatening the complainant about a settlement in the legal proceedings, the applicant demanded money and was caught red-handed.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court observed that at the stage of bail. There isn't much expectation for this level of discussion. With the understanding that any observations made at this point will not be relevant at any later stage of the case, the matter may be explored to the amount necessary to understand the arguments involved. The court doesn’t go into much detail but the fact that the applicant categorically demanded Rs.75,000/- for the Additional District Magistrate court’s reader and Rs. 1,00,000/- for himself is clear.
It was also observed that it is a serious offense. In reality, corruption in public life has severely impacted this enormous country's economy in addition to undermining the faith that the common man has in the system.
The Decision of the Court:
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that this case was not fit for bail and rejected the bail application.
Case Title: Virender Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand
Case no.: First Bail Application No. 1694 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
