2025:UHC:1520 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application 1st No.2192 of 2024 Devendra Singh Bora ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Mr. H.C. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been filed by the applicant, Devendra Singh Bora, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking bail in connection with FIR No. 17 of 2024, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station Vigilance Sector, Nainital, Haldwani, District Nainital. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the State. Perused the records. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is argued that the alleged bribe demand of ₹2,000/- is not supported by direct evidence, and there was no pending official work of the complainant at the time of the alleged transaction. It is further contended that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay, and no independent public witness was present at the time of arrest. Additionally, the applicant is a government 1 servant and the sole breadwinner of his family, and continued incarceration would cause irreparable hardship. 4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, submitting that the applicant was caught red-handed while accepting ₹1,000/- as part of a bribe for processing the complainant’s land mutation. The trap was conducted in accordance with due procedure, with independent witnesses Pradeep Kumar and Amrit Lal present, and the recovery of tainted money with phenolphthalein powder confirms the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, audio recordings of the accused demanding money from the complainant have been transcribed and placed on record, establishing a clear demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. 5. Upon careful consideration of the case record, this Court finds that the applicant’s contention regarding the absence of direct evidence is misplaced, as the trap proceedings were conducted in the presence of independent witnesses, and electronic evidence in the form of recorded conversations further corroborates the bribery allegations. Additionally, the delay in lodging the written complaint does not automatically discredit the prosecution's case, as the complainant first approached the Vigilance Department and the matter was subject to internal verification before the trap proceedings were initiated. 6. The recovery of tainted money, matching the pre-trap serial numbers, and the positive phenolphthalein test further establish a prima facie case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that in corruption cases, mere receipt or agreement to accept an illegal gratification is sufficient to constitute an offense, irrespective of whether the favor was actually granted. 7. Moreover, the concern that if released, the applicant may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence cannot be ruled out, given the nature of the offense and the applicant’s position as a public servant. The risk of misuse of official authority to obstruct the ongoing trial is a crucial factor weighing against the grant of bail. 8. Given the gravity of the allegations, the evidence on record, and the potential impact on the integrity of the judicial process, this Court does not find sufficient grounds to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 04.03.2025