2025:UHC:2675 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application 1st No.2557 of 2024 Anil Kumar Saini ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence: Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Shri Anil Kumar Saini, S/o Shri Lal Bahadur Saini, who is presently serving as Assistant General Manager at Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Kashipur Depot and is in judicial custody since his arrest on 17.08.2024 in connection with FIR No. 15/2024 registered at Police Station Vigilance Sector, Nainital, Haldwani for offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). The applicant has been in custody for approximately five months as of the date of this order. 2. The prosecution case originates from a complaint dated 05.08.2024 filed by Shri Manish Agarwal, a private bus operator, alleging that the applicant, while abusing his official position as a public servant, demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 3,000 per month per bus, totaling Rs. 12,000 for four months, for ensuring uninterrupted operation of three buses contracted with the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. According to the prosecution case, on 06.08.2024, the applicant accepted Rs. 3,000 as part payment of the bribe amount and subsequently on 17.08.2024, was 1 apprehended by the Vigilance Department while allegedly accepting the remaining Rs. 9,000. The prosecution claims to have recovered the tainted currency notes from the applicant's possession and obtained positive results in the phenolphthalein test conducted on the applicant's hands. Voice recordings purportedly capturing the demand for bribe form part of the prosecution evidence. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and for the state. Perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the mandatory provisions regarding trap proceedings have not been fully complied with in the present case. It is contended that serious discrepancies exist in the allegations as the initial complaint mentioned a demand of Rs. 6,000 by one S.K. Saini, Deputy General Manager, while subsequent allegations were made against the present applicant for Rs. 12,000. The applicant has raised objections regarding the independence of witnesses in the trap proceedings, asserting that they were selected by the Vigilance team. Another significant contention raised is regarding the alleged lack of conclusive proof of demand, which is claimed to be a foundational requirement under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The circumstances of recovery have also been questioned, with the applicant suggesting possible irregularities in the procedure. 5. The State has opposed the bail application vehemently, submitting that the prosecution has collected cogent evidence including voice recordings, recovery of tainted currency notes, scientific evidence and statements of witnesses, which collectively establish a strong prima facie case against the applicant. Emphasis has been laid on the grave nature of the offence, being corruption by a public servant, which undermines public trust in governance. Particular stress has been placed on the influential position held by the applicant as a senior public servant, creating reasonable apprehension that if released on bail, he may misuse his position to interfere with the trial process. The State has pointed out that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is at a preliminary stage with material witnesses yet to be examined. Reference has been made to the previous rejection of the bail application by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Haldwani vide detailed order dated 12.12.2024. 6. After careful consideration of the submissions and examination of the case records, this Court finds that the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the applicant. The evidence in the form of voice recordings, recovery of tainted currency notes, scientific evidence and witness statements, collectively present a strong case against the applicant at this stage. The nature and gravity of the offence cannot be overlooked, as corruption by public servants constitutes a serious economic offence that erodes the foundations of good governance. 7. The influential position held by the applicant as an Assistant General Manager in a public sector undertaking raises legitimate concerns about possible interference with the trial process if bail is granted at this stage. The charge-sheet having been filed recently, and with most material witnesses yet to be examined, granting bail may adversely affect the trial proceedings. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate any exceptional or compelling circumstances that would warrant grant of bail in the present case. 8. This Court is guided by the settled legal principles regarding bail in corruption cases involving public servants, which demand greater caution and circumspection. Considering the serious nature of allegations, the strong prima facie case established by the prosecution, the influential position held by the applicant, the stage of trial proceedings, and the absence of any compelling circumstances favoring the applicant, this Court finds no justification to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 27.03.2025 NR/