2025:UHC:5936 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. 1086 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Ms. Anmol Sandhu, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Narayan Singh Karayat’ S/o Late Dev Singh Karayat is praying for bail in relation to First Information Report dated 05.04.2025 bearing FIR No. 02 of 2025 P.S. Vigilance Establishment Sector Nainital, Haldwani, District Nainital, wherein, the applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the implication of the present applicant in this case appears to be a malicious prosecution, which is evident from the fact that the applicant being a Kanoongo issued a notice on 22.11.2023 for initiation of proceeding under the U.P. Public Land House (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act to the complainant due to this reason the complainant was highlyprejudiced with him. He further submits that the eviction proceeding under P.P. Act was concluded and ultimately the eviction order was passed by the prescribed authority on 07.05.2025. He further submits that since the P.P. proceedings was at a concluding stage, which was concluded on 07.05.2025 by the prescribed authority but one months prior to that the complainant made a complaint on 03.04.2025 against applicant and on the basis of the said complaint the trap was conducted on 05.04.2025 and the applicant was caught red handed and taken into custody. He submits that for constituting an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act there should be a demand and acceptance and in reference to the demand a telephonic conversation is taken into consideration, however, at the time of trap the 2025:UHC:5936 voice recorder provided to the complainant was switched off, which is evident from the recovery memo, which is annexed as Annexure-2 and as such there no element of acceptance. 5. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant is at the fag end of the service and the entire service of the applicant is unblemished and the chargesheet has already been filed and furthermore as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and since and the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.04.2025, therefore, be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other side, learned Brief Holder for the State Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj oppose the bail application by submitting that there is a conversation of the applicant with the complainant with regard to the demand and the applicant was caught red handed by the trap team, however, he admits this fact that the voice recorder, which was handed over to the complainant was switched off at the time of the trap and this fact he has not disputed on the basis of the recovery memo, which is placed on record. 7. Apart from this, he has not disputed this fact that the chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that since the chargesheet has already been filed and there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant, and as such, 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 ‘Narayan Singh Karayat’ 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.) 09.07.2025 PR 2025:UHC:5936