Narayan Dutt Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate, for the applicant and Mr.S.S.Adhikari, AGA for the State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant - Narayan Dutt Joshi, who is in custody in Case Crime No. 03 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station - Vigilance Sector, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail. This is the 2nd Bail Application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 13.03.2019.

Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that there are two additional grounds for enlarging the applicant on bail. They are as hereunder:

(1)        Applicant is in jail for a long period now. He was arrested on 23.05.2018 and since then he is in jail.

(2)        There had been no FIR prior to 23.05.2018 against the first informant, therefore, there was no occasion for the applicant to demand any illegal gratification from the informant.

It appears that a complaint was given to S.P., Vigilance by the complainant on 21.05.2018 with the averment therein the applicant demanded Rupees Fifteen Thousand from him, so as to exonerate two persons for the offences, which the applicant was investigating and the deal was settled for Rupees Thirteen Thousand. Record further reveals that Inspector Vigilance, preliminary inquired about this complaint and he heard the telephonic conversation which was purportedly recorded by the complainant at the time when he met the applicant. It was found that it is the case fit for trap. Accordingly, the trap was laid. Inspector Vigilance, Dehradun conducted the trap and at the indicated time and place, when Rupees Thirteen Thousand was handed over to the applicant along with the independent witness, the trap team arrested him. Phenolphthalein test was conducted. His hands were dipped into the solution, which turned pink. The memo was prepared and Inspector (Vigilance) has revealed as to what had happened in the matter and witnesses have also stated about it to the Investigating Officer. The hand-wash of the applicant as well as Currency Notes were sent for forensic examination. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory has also been received.

This Court is conscious of the fact that at the stage of bail, evidence and merits should not be extensively examined. To a limited extent of examining the prima facie, case merit is to be seen.

The First Information Report in the instant case does not speak of any FIR having been lodged against the first informant. What it speaks is that the applicant told the first informant that there is an FIR against him and to exonerate him, demanded illegal gratification. So, the existence of any FIR or no FIR on or before 23.05.2018 does not make any difference, insofar as, this case is concerned. All aspects of the matter have already been examined by the court while rejecting the bail application filed by the applicant.

Suffice it to say, in the offence like the instant one, the period of detention, for which, the applicant has been in custody is also not very relevant for bail.

In the case of Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State of NCT, (2018) 12 SCC 129, Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the principles of law as laid down in the case of Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala vs. State Of Gujarat (2008) 3 SCC 775, in which, inter alia, it was held that the period inside the jail is not a relevant consideration for grant of bail. Moreover, such contingency has been provided under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

This is a case pertaining to illegal gratification by a public servant. There is no change in the circumstances since first bail application has been rejected. Hence, the instant bail application also deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.