Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12616 (UTT)

AYAZUDDIN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA2/288/2024 · 2025-03-26

Ashish Naithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:2283 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 26th March, 2025 SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO. 288 of 2024 Ayazuddin …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present Second Bail Application has been moved by the applicant-Ayazuddin, aged about 59 years (S/o Moyejuddin, R/o Village Bhaisa, Mawana, Uttar Pradesh). The applicant is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No. 08 of 2024, registered at Police Station Vigilance Establishment, Sector Dehradun, District Dehradun, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and perused the record. 3. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.07.2024. 4. It has been alleged that the applicant, a government official, demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of ₹10,000 from the complainant, Nirdosh 2025:UHC:2283 Kumar, in exchange for a favorable report. The complainant, in his complaint dated 11.07.2024, allegedly recorded a conversation with the applicant, which allegedly confirms the demand for a bribe. Based on this, a preliminary inquiry was conducted, and upon verification, a trap was laid on 12.07.2024. The applicant was allegedly caught red-handed, and ₹10,000 was recovered from a dark brown bag belonging to him. The trap memo was prepared on the spot, and witness statements, including that of shadow witness Sahaj Ram, were recorded. The charge sheet has been filed, and the trial is at a crucial stage. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and that no proper preliminary inquiry was conducted before the trap. It is argued that the trap witness was not independent, and no sodium carbonate hand wash test was conducted to prove that the applicant handled the bribe money. The defense further contends that the money was planted by the vigilance team, and procedural lapses, such as the absence of a valid pre-trap memo and prior sanction for the trap witness, cast doubt on the case. It is also submitted that the complainant was on duty at his school on the alleged date, contradicting the State’s version. The applicant has an unblemished service record and is not a flight risk. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, arguing that the allegations are serious and backed by documentary and witness evidence. The preliminary inquiry confirmed the bribery demand, supported by a voice recording. The trap was executed as 2025:UHC:2283 per due process, and the applicant was caught in possession of the bribe money. The trap witness corroborates the incident, and the charge sheet has been filed on 05.09.2024, with key witnesses yet to be examined. Given the nature of the offense, the State argues that the applicant’s release may lead to tampering with evidence and influence over witnesses. 7. Upon considering the submissions and perusal of records, it is evident that the allegations pertain to a serious offense affecting public trust. The trap proceedings and witness statements support the State’s case. The absence of a sodium carbonate test does not override the material evidence available. The charge-sheet has been filed, and trial is in progress, making any interference at this stage unwarranted. 8. Considering the seriousness of the offense, the strength of the evidence, and the potential risk to the trial, this Court finds no good ground to grant bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the Second Bail Application is rejected. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 26.03.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b 09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9 BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.03.27 15:37:55 +05'30'