2025:UHC:10285 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 / 2 2 1 2 / 2 0 2 5 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. D. K. Sharma, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. G. S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 3. Present applicant “Kadir Ahmed, son of Sharif Ahmed,” is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 21.07.2025 bearing FIR No. 0006 of 2025, Police Station – Vigilance Establishment Sector, Nainital wherein present applicant with one Pooran Saini have been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 3 (5) of the BNS, 2023. 4. Mr. D. K. Sharma, learned Sr. Advocate for the applicant argued that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submits that neither there is any demand nor there any recovery from the present applicant and whatever be the recovery has been shown it is shown from other co- accused Pooran Saini. He further submits that present applicant is working as Head Clerk and other co- accused is working as Secretary in the Mandi Parishad. He further submits that applicant was arrested on the date of trap i.e. on 22.07.2025 though the time trap, applicant being an employee of the department was standing in the office of Secretary i.e. Pooran Saini, who was caught red handed by the Vigilance Team. He further submits that in this case, charge sheet was filed on 19.09.2025, however, charge sheet was registered as Misc. Case and no cognizance was taken since there was no sanction and other accused namely Pooran Saini prayed for default bail before the trial court on the ground that the charge sheet was filed on 19.09.2025 without any sanction of the competent authority. He further submits that though the default bail sought by the co – accused Pooran Saini was rejected by the trial court, however, against the said order, Criminal Revision No. 698 of 2025 was filed and the Coordinate Bench of this Court granted interim bail to the co-accused Pooran Saini on 10.11.2025. 5. I have perused the entire record. Annexure No. 8 is the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by Second Addl. 2025:UHC:10285 Session Judge passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 59 of 2025 which in fact was registered on the charge sheet. On perusal of this order, it reveals that on the charge sheet Misc. Criminal Case was registered only because of the reason there was no sanction order of the competent authority and while passing the order the trial court also directed the I.O. to cure the defect and the defect as revealed from order dated 19.09.2025 is to produce sanction order. 6. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that default bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely on the ground that charge sheet was not accompanied with sanction order. He submits that sanction is always required at the time of taking of cognizance on the charge sheet and not at the time of furnishing the charge sheet and that is the reason the trial court rightly reject the default bail by a detailed order. He further submits that default bail was denied by the trial court to the accused Pooran Saini on the ground that while furnishing the charge sheet, sanction is not required and sanction is required only at the time of taking of cognizance on the charge sheet. 7. Be that as it may, in this case, admittedly, present applicant was not caught red handed and there is no recovery from the applicant, however, there are some telephonic conversation in between the complainant and the present applicant from which it reveals that there are some element of demand but there is no recovery from the present applicant. 8. Apart from this, charge sheet has already been filed, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation and further, taking into consideration that Coordinate Bench granted interim bail to the main accused Pooran Saini, who in fact, was caught red handed, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant “Kadir Ahmed, son of Sharif Ahmed,” be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 11. Disconnect this bail from CRLR No. 698 of 2025. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 19.11.2025 SKS