JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Advocate for the applicant. 2. Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, A.G.A., Rakesh Kunwar, Smt. Farida Siddique and Mr. D.K. Bankoti, Brief Holders, for the State. 3. Having heard learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the accused applicant and learned Counsel for the State, it transpires that the applicant is posted as Assistant Engineer in the Mussorrie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA). The compounding proceedings regarding over-construction of the house of Mr. Laxmi Chand were underway in the MDDA, wherefor the applicant was in touch with Laxmi Chand all the times prior to lodging of the instant FIR. Mr. Ajay Kumar, a Supervisor in MDDA who was in the team of applicant Mr. Nautiyal for the authority’s work, was sent by the applicant and the Junior Engineer Mr. Narendra Tomar (as the evidence has been gathered by the Investigation Officer) to collect rupees one lakh from Laxmi Chand as illicit consideration in lieu of such compounding. Laxmi Chand sent his driver Jaswant for passing on the money, but prior to this, he had informed the vigilance officers about all these things and so the team of vigilance was also present at the spot along with Jaswant. The trap remained successful. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumar, the Supervisor who was sent to collect the money, was caught red handed at the spot along with the money which was sent by Laxmi Chand through his driver Jaswant, as indicated above. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has argued that Mr. Triyambak Prasad Nautiyal is in jail since 16.2.2016. Earlier, he had filed a writ petition before this Court for quashing of the FIR, but no relief was granted. That part, the applicant has been made prey of the departmental jealousy among the fellow engineers and it is the main reason of framing the applicant in the instant case. 6. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned State Counsel that after the detailed investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter and the prosecution has collected overwhelming evidence against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 7. 6. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned State Counsel that after the detailed investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter and the prosecution has collected overwhelming evidence against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 7. Prima facie, I am also of the view that the evidence so collected by the Investigation Officer is formidable to nail the culprit, and it would not be in the interest of justice to analyze all such evidence at this stage. 8. So, in view of the Court, too, such government officials, who are meant to serve the society, if commit such a crime with impunity, then they do not deserve bail. 9. Bail application is rejected.