2025:UHC:6690 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1232/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Ms. Suraiya Naz, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder the State. 3. Present applicant ‘Subodh Shukla, son of late Shri Binayak Prasad Shukla,’ aged about 61 years, is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 25.05.2025 bearing FIR No. 0005 of 2025, Police Station – Vigilance Establishment, Sector Haldwani, District – Nainital, wherein present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that present applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He was serving as Colonel and retired from Indian Army after being declared 50% disable and thereafter, he was re-employed as District Sainik Welfare and Rehabilitation Officer. He submits that applicant has been implicated on the complaint of a person, who was posted in his office on contractual basis. Complainant in his complaint alleged that for extending the contract period for one year, applicant was demanding Rs. 50,000/- and after this complaint, a trap was laid and applicant was arrested on 24.05.2025. He also submits that implication of the present applicant in the present case appears to be malicious act, on the part of the complainant, since by office order dated 03.05.2025, the complainant Kailash Chandra was intimated that since he does know about internal computer related work, therefore, his tenure cannot be extended and that is reason he implicate the applicant in order to build up pressure only to get undue advantage. 5. Apart from this, he submits that wives of other employees, who hold posts in the present department, had also made complaint against the present complainant and on such complaint, a notice was issued to the complainant on 30.04.2025 and thereafter, a warning was issued to him. He further submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 24.05.2025 and 2025:UHC:6690 charge sheet has already been filed on 21.07.2025 and therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. He further submits that entire service record of the present applicant in the Army was unblemished including in the present department and the complainant with some ulterior motive implicated the present applicant which appears to be a glaring example of malicious prosecution. 6. On the other side, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State, have not disputed this fact that charge sheet has already been filed on 21.07.2025 and therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. 7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since 24.05.2025 and charge sheet has already been filed on 21.07.2025 and therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and applicant is senior citizen retired from Indian Army as Colonel, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant ‘Subodh Shukla, son of late Shri Binayak Prasad Shukla,’ 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.) 30.07.2025. SKS 2025:UHC:6690