SL. No. Dat e Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2026:UHC:4591 BA 1st No.707 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present applicant – Naveen Nautiyal, is praying for bail in a reference to a Case Crime No.03 of 2026, wherein, he has been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), Police Station Vigilance Establishment, Sector Nainital, Haldwani. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the written complaint of the complainant – Jai Prakash, the demand was made by the Ranger – Ashutosh Joshi, on the instance of the Divisional Forest Officer, but Divisional Forest Officer has not been chargesheeted. He submits that though there is no evidence of demand by the applicant however based on the recovery, the applicant has been chargsheeted. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan” 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 475 by referring paragraph nos.15 and 16, wherein it has been held that merely on the basis of the recovery, no presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Apart from this, he submits that chargesheet has already been filed, and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 29.03.2026. 5. Per contra Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA submits that there is also a demand by the present applicant, which is reflected from the audio transcription between the applicant and the complainant. On such submission learned counsel for the applicant submits that the transcription in between the complainant and Ranger- Ashutosh Joshi, also reveals that the demand was also made on the instance of Divisional Forest Officer. 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and taking into consideration that the chargesheet has already been filed and there is no need for further custodial interrogation and the issue of presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is the subject matter of trial, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Naveen Nautiyal, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 09.06.2026 Nitesh/