JUDGMENT Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant has sought his release on bail in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.5/2018 under Sections 7/8/13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC, which was registered at P.S. Vigilance Sector, Sector Haldwani, District Nainital. 3. The case of the prosecution is that complainant Purshottam Garg had applied for grant of trading licence at Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Rudrapur for which he had completed all the formalities. According to the complaint, the dealing clerk Indra Bahadur Chand demanded Rs.8,000/- for issuing the licence. The complainant was called twice and thrice by Indra Bahadur Chand in the office, but on 21.8.2018, when the co-accused Indra Bahadur Chand was not present in the office, the complainant contacted the present applicant who spoke to the co-accused Indra Bahadur Chand from the complainant's phone and after speaking with him, the applicant demanded bribe amount from the complainant. At that time, he was nabbed by the trap team while accepting the bribe from the complainant and the case was registered against the applicant. 4. It is argued by learned Counsel for the applicant that all the allegations regarding demand of gratification were levelled by the complainant Purushottam Garg as against Indra Bahadur Chand and not against the applicant; that before trapping, a written application was given by the informant on 20.8.2018 to the Vigilance Department, wherein also, the specific allegations were made against Indra Bahadur Chand and not against the present applicant Bhuwan Nath Goswami; in the statement recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the Vigilance Inspector Inder Singh Rana stated that an application was made by Mr. Purshottam Garg regarding the illegal gratification demanded by Indra Bahadur Chand; Mr. Purushottam Garg in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. clearly stated it is Inder Bahadur Chand who made a demand of Rs.20,000/- for issuing the licence of Mandi Samiti; and in the statement of Purushottam Garg, there is no such allegation of demand of illegal gratification by the present applicant. 5. On a perusal of the FIR and other documents, it reveals that all the allegations have been made against Indra Bahadur Chand. Even not a single word has been stated against the present applicant Bhuwan Nath Goswami. 5. On a perusal of the FIR and other documents, it reveals that all the allegations have been made against Indra Bahadur Chand. Even not a single word has been stated against the present applicant Bhuwan Nath Goswami. Moreover, the bail of the co-accused Indra Bahadur Chand has already been granted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.11.2018; the present accused is languishing in jail since 21.8.2018; and there is no previous criminal history of the applicant. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the present bail application moved by the applicant Bhuwan Nath Goswami is allowed. Let he be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 8. It is however clarified that the observations made by this Court hereinabove are exclusively for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall, in no manner, affect the trial proceedings.