Dinesh Kumar Rana vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Mahra, J

Applicant – Dinesh Kumar Rana, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 04 of 2025, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), registered at Police Station Vigilance Establishment, Sector Nainital, Haldwani, has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is alleged that on the basis of a trap memo, the aforesaid F.I.R. was registered against the applicant, who is serving as Chief Treasury Officer, Nainital, and another co-accused, who is working as Accountant in the same Treasury Office. It is alleged that during the trap operation, conducted in the presence of complainant Kanta Prasad and shadow witnesses, the applicant was apprehended for allegedly accepting gratification to the tune of ₹1,20,000/-. Based on the alleged raid, a trap memo was prepared, and other formalities were purportedly completed at the spot.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the F.I.R. has been lodged on false and fabricated allegations. According to the prosecution, the alleged demand for gratification was made to the complainant, who is serving as a Stenographer in the Judgeship at District Court, Dehradun. However, the complainant, in his complaint dated 02.05.2025 addressed to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Haldwani, alleged that the applicant and the co-accused had called him to the office on 09.05.2025 and demanded ₹1,20,000/- for submitting a favourable report.

It is contended that there was no occasion for the applicant to demand any such gratification, as the complainant had already been extended the benefit of the staffing pattern and was therefore not entitled to the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP), in accordance with the relevant Government Orders. The complainant’s previous application for grant of ACP benefits had already been rejected by the duly constituted committee. Hence, there existed no cause or occasion for the applicant to demand any illegal gratification from the complainant. It is further submitted that the applicant has maintained an unblemished service record throughout his career and there is no adverse remark against him. The complaint was lodged on 02.05.2025, and without conducting any preliminary enquiry, the alleged trap was carried out on 09.05.2025, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story.

It is further argued that as per the contents of the F.I.R. and recovery memo, the complainant himself stated that the alleged amount was handed over to the co-accused, not to the present applicant. Nothing was recovered from the possession or at the pointing out of the applicant. This fact, it is urged, clearly indicates false implication. The alleged money was placed in a bag, and upon instructions during the trap, the same was placed on the table and counted by the shadow witnesses. Although the pre-trap memo mentions the denomination of the currency notes, it nowhere asserts that the same were recovered from the applicant. Rather, the recovery was shown from the Almirah of the co-accused, wherein apart from the alleged ₹1,20,000/-, other articles were also recovered.

Learned counsel further submits that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the absence of such proof, the charge cannot stand. Mere possession or recovery of any amount, de hors the proof of demand, is insufficient to constitute an offence under the Act. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in a catena of judgments, has held that mere possession or recovery of currency notes without proof of demand does not establish an offence under the Act. The element of demand is an indispensable essentiality for sustaining conviction under Section 7 of the Act; that, unless there is clear and unimpeachable evidence of demand or acceptance, mere recovery would not suffice to hold a public servant guilty of corruption.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the applicant is a responsible officer whose work and conduct have always been appreciated by his superiors. He has no criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody since 10.05.2025. It is submitted that 25 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. The charge-sheet has already been filed; hence, there is no possibility of tampering with evidence. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Nainital and a Government Servant; thus, there is no likelihood of his absconding.

Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the complainant was compelled to pay undue advantage/gratification of ₹1,20,000/-, which was demanded and accepted by the applicant. It is argued that the offence is grave and amounts to a crime against society. It is further submitted that the offence involves corruption in public office and concerns an employee of the District Court. After collecting sufficient evidence, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet against the applicant.

Learned State Counsel further submits that the recovery was made from the Almirah in the office of the applicant. It is contended that if released on bail, there is a possibility that the applicant may influence witnesses, as most of them are Government officials and police personnel. It is also stated that the there are sufficient evidence and witnesses to prove the alleged demand by the applicant; that, the voice recording of the alleged demand has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the report is still awaited. However, he admits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 10.05.2025 and that 25 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.

After considering the arguments of both sides and examining the material on record, it appears that the essential element of demand of illegal gratification, which is necessary to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has not been clearly established at this stage. The allegation of demand is based mainly on the statement of the complainant, while the recovery, as shown in the trap and recovery memos, was made from the almirah of the co-accused and not from the person or possession of the present applicant. Hence, the prosecution case appears to be based largely on circumstantial evidence.

It is also noted that the charge sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has been in custody since 10.05.2025. The trial is expected to take time as 25 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Nainital, a government servant with no criminal history, and there is no indication that he would abscond or influence the evidence.

Considering these facts and the settled law that proof of demand is a necessary condition for establishing an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that continued detention of the applicant during the pendency of the trial would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail.

Accordingly, the 1st bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.