Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 136 (UTT)

Madan Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-01-20

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicants-Madan Singh Rawat, Hare Ram Yadav and Dinesh Gairola seek anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.47 of 2022, under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kotwali Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the informant appeared through video conferencing. 3. According to the FIR, the applicants were officers in the Education Department. They demanded bribe from one Anil Negi, the Manager of a Private School. The FIR records that, in fact, the applicants were pressurizing for some appointments and were also demanding money, so as to sanction the appointment of a Lecturer done by Anil Negi in his private school. The videos of transactions were made available by Anil Negi and he gave them to the informant, who is a Journalist. He lodged the report. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that it is a whole planted case against the Government Officers. It is argued that all the applicants are Government Servants and one of them has already retired. In the year 2013, it is being stated that two thousand rupees currency note were given in bribe, but, it is argued that in the year 2013, there was no currency note of the denomination of two thousand rupees. 5. Learned counsel would also raise the following points:- (i) the Deputy Superintendant of Police had conducted an inquiry in the matter and had found that, in fact, the Anil Negi did not support the case. He denied of having made any video and stated that he had taken loan from applicant-Hare Ram Yadav, which he had returned; (ii) Anil Negi, in his statement given to the Investigating Officer has also not supported the prosecution case and stated that he had taken a loan from applicant-Hare Ram Yadav, which he returned; (iii) The applicants did not demand any bribe; (iv) The informant is a Journalist, who wants to blackmail the applicants; (v) It is not a case which may require any custodial interrogation, and; (vi) There are no chances of the applicants running from justice. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the Anil Negi had given videos to the informant. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the Anil Negi had given videos to the informant. The applicants have been well identified and the Forensic Science Laboratory Report has verified the authenticity of video and has confirmed the identity of the applicants as well. 7. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that, in fact, for two reasons, Anil Negi was pressurized by the applicants, namely (i) for appointment of the brother of the applicant-Hare Ram Yadav in the School under the management of Anil Negi and (ii) they were demanding money, so as to give approval to the appointment of a teacher in the School under the management of Anil Negi. 8. It is submitted that, in fact, Anil Negi prepared the videos, which he gave to the informant. It is a matter, which happened just before the Assembly Election of 2017, therefore, at the time, there was availability of currency note of two thousand rupees denomination. 9. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that, in fact, when the matter was not investigated by the police, a writ petition was filed in this Court bearing Writ Petition (PIL) No. 207 of 2019, in which, the Court had directed as follows:- ' We direct the Chief Secretary to personally look into the matter. He is directed to fix the responsibility of the Officers, who have delayed the culmination of process of granting permission to prosecute the suspect(s) under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Those who are found to have committed lapses in performance of their duties should be named and action should be initiated against them. In this regard, an affidavit shall be filed by the Chief Secretary within four weeks. Further steps shall be taken in respect of the communication dated 11.04.2020 and the matter shall be brought to its logical conclusion before the next date.' 10. It is argued that, thereafter the investigation was done. In fact, reference has been made to a communication dated 11.04.2020 of S.S.P. Pauri Garhwal, which is also annexure-1, to the counter affidavit filed by the informant. Based on it, it is argued that S.S.P. Pauri Garhwal had recommended for lodging the FIR in the matter. 11. It is a matter pertaining to anticipatory bail. The consideration that weigh at this stage includes the gravity of offence needs for custodial interrogation etc. Based on it, it is argued that S.S.P. Pauri Garhwal had recommended for lodging the FIR in the matter. 11. It is a matter pertaining to anticipatory bail. The consideration that weigh at this stage includes the gravity of offence needs for custodial interrogation etc. The Offence and its impact on the society are other factors that are also taken into consideration at this stage. 12. It is true that the Anil Negi, in his statement given to the Investigating Officer has totally denied of having given any bribe to any of the applicants. In fact, according to him, he had taken some money as a loan from the applicant-Hare Ram Yadav, which he had returned. The informant has categorical stated as to how the Anil Negi had approached him and told that the applicants had been demanding money from him; he prepared videos and gave it to the informant, which was uploaded by him on his social media platforms. 13. Apart from it, there is one important communication of S.S.P. Pauri Garhwal, which is annexure-1, to the counter affidavit filed by the informant. In this communication, the S.S.P. while narrating the contents of FIR has also recorded that Forensic Science Laboratory Report has confirmed the videos. He has sought permission for lodging of FIR. Forensic Science Laboratory Report has also been obtained, which identified the applicants. On behalf of the informant, it is submitted that, in fact, the audio conversation confirms the role of the applicant. 14. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application deserves to be rejected. 15. The anticipatory bail application is rejected.