2025:UHC:2677 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 622 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Yogesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Mohan Singh’ S/o Late Mallu Singh, who is languishing in jail since 11.03.2025 is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 11.03.2025, P.S. Vigilance Establishment Sector Haldwani, District Naintal, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Lalit Sharma argued that the applicant is serving as a Registrar Kanoongo and now implicated for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. He submits that the entire proceeding as initiated by the Vigilance Establishment is appears to be a faulty, which is evident from the fact that in fact the grievance of the complainant, which was pending consideration before the department concerned was already redressed much before the complaint of the complainant i.e. on 01.03.2025, which pertains to certain entries in R6 register, thereafter almost after 9 days by giving reference of some conversation, which was recorded by the complainant in his mobile a complaint was made on 10.03.2025 and on the next date i.e. on 11.03.2025 the Vigilance Establishment constituted a trap team without examining the genuineness of the complaint and the trap team trapped the applicant. 6. The demand was for Rs. 3,500/-, which was recovered from the applicant during trap by a team of Vigilance Establishment. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Vigilance Establishment have not make any attempt to examine the genuineness of the complaint, which is a pre-condition as per the 2025:UHC:2677 statutory guidelines of vigilance establishment. He submits that as per the recovery memo itself the entries were already made in R6 register on 01.03.2025 and that was the main grievance of the complainant that was already redressed on 01.03.2025, therefore, if such a grievance was already redressed on 01.03.2025 what was the occasion on the part of the complainant to make such complaint for demand of bribery particularly after 9 days of the entries made in R6 register. 8. In support of this learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Lalit Sharma gives reference of statutory guidelines of Vigilance Establishment. 9. He submits that this aspect has not been examined before constituting a trap team for the purposes of trap and without examining the genuineness of the complaint. The trap team was constituted and ultimately the trap was done and the applicant has been implicated. 10. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Lalit Sharma argued that since the grievance of the complainant was already redressed on 01.03.2025 therefore there was no occasion on the part of the applicant to make any demand and if there is no demand then there is no acceptance. Therefore, prima-facie on perusal of the recovery memo no offence is made is made out against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 11. On the other side, learned A.G.A. Mr. V.S. Pal have not disputed this fact that in fact the entry in R6 register was already carried on 01.03.2025 and only thereafter the complainant submitted a complaint and the trap was done. 12. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. fairly submits that the recovery memo itself reflects that the entry in R6 register was already carried on 01.03.2025. 13. Apart from this, in order to assist this court he also fairly submits that in fact this aspect when the entry was already made in R-6 register has to be examined before taking action on the complaint, which prima-facie appears to be missing in this recovery memo. 14. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into 2025:UHC:2677 consideration the recovery memo, which clearly reflects that the grievance of the complainant was already redressed on 01.03.2025 and the complaint was made thereafter, this court is of the view that prima-facie this aspect has not been looked into by the Vigilance Establishment to examine on which date entries were made before taking action and, in such an eventuality, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant ‘Mohan Singh’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 09.04.2025 PR 2025:UHC:2677