JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Verma, J. - Present First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No.2 of 2022, registered with Police Station Vigilance Sector, Dehradun, District Dehradun for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption, 1988 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the complainant-Mahesh Chandra Agarwal had moved an application to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Sector, Dehradun on 25.02.2022 to the effect that the complainant has retired on 30.04.2008 from the post of Junior Engineer from Maneri Bhali Project under Irrigation Department. Due to deduction in his pension amount, he had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal concerned. The Tribunal concerned had directed the Department to pay the deducted amount with interest. Against the said decision, the Department had filed a writ petition before this Court. The High Court had directed the Department to pay the amount in compliance with the order of the Tribunal. On 22.02.2022, the complainant received a call from Anil Kumar Purohit, Section Officer, Irrigation Department, on his mobile phone no.9760039627 from mobile phone no.9927699051. He called complainant to the Secretariat for some clarification regarding the payment. On 24.02.2022, the complainant along with his younger son went to the Secretariat. Anil Kumar Purohit and Kamleshwar Prasad Thapliyal (present applicant-accused) were present in their office. They demanded a bribe of Rs.1.00 Lakh from the complainant for not filing Special Leave Petition and to clear his dues. After showing his inability to pay the said amount by the complainant, they were ready to take Rs.80,000/-. The said conversation was recorded by his son namely, Krishan Chandra Agarwal on his mobile. The present applicant again called the complainant from his mobile phone no.9927699965 on the above mentioned mobile phone number of the complainant and told him to come in his office on 25.02.2022 at 05.00 p.m. On 28.02.2022 at about 19.02 hrs., a Team of Vigilance, Headed by Inspector Manoj Rawat, arrested the present applicant from near the Gate No.3 of the Secretariat, Dehradun and recovered Rs.75,000/- from his possession, which was given by the complainant's son Krishan Chandra Agarwal to the applicant in lieu of making in the payment of pension along with interest. After the said recovery, present applicant was taken by the Trap Team to a Hotel, namely Shivam Hotel, Tyagi Road, Dehradun and in the said Hotel, the said money i.e. Rs.75,000/- was recovered again from the pocket of the present applicant. The First Information Report was lodged on 01.03.2022 at 04.10 hrs. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. 3. Heard Mr. Sandeep Tandon with Ms. Tajaswina Sagar, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 4. Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. In the counter affidavit of the respondent, it has been specifically mentioned that the order for grant of pension was already passed in favour of the complainant by the competent authorities, whereas, the applicant, Review Officer, has no authority to pass or reject the pension of the complainant; no recovery memo or any document regarding arrest or the alleged recovery were prepared at the alleged spot of the arrest. He argued that according to the present case, when the money was recovered from the possession of the applicant at the place of arrest under what circumstances, the said money was recovered again from his pocket in the Hotel. 5. The said fact, regarding the recovery of money in the hotel, could not be clarified by the respondent in the counter affidavit, filed by the Investigating Officer, therefore, on 20.12.2022, learned counsel appearing for the State had requested to summon the Investigating Officer to clarify the facts. The Investigating Officer was summoned along with complete Case Diary and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, if any. In compliance of the said order dated 20.12.2022, Mr. Pawan Kumar, Inspector, Investigating Officer, was present in-person on 03.01.2023. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was not filed. On 03.01.2023, Investigating Officer was clarified that according to the counter affidavit, the applicant-accused was trapped and a sum of Rs.75,000/-was recovered from his possession at the time of his arrest. After that, he was taken into a hotel and again the said money was recovered from his pocket. The Investigating Officer requested three days time to file his affidavit to clarify the said position. After that, he was taken into a hotel and again the said money was recovered from his pocket. The Investigating Officer requested three days time to file his affidavit to clarify the said position. The Investigating Officer has filed his affidavit along with subsequent statements of Trap Incharge Manoj Rawat, Inspector, Inspector Tushar Bora, a member of the Trap Team and Manohar Patiyal, Excise Inspector, witness of the alleged recovery. According to the said subsequent statements, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 04.01.2023, Trap Incharge Manoj Rawat, Inspector had directed the witness Manohar Patiyal at the time of arrest of the applicant to return the said recovered money i.e. Rs.75,000/- to the applicant-accused. On the said direction, the applicant took the said recovered money and put it in his pocket, which was recovered in the Hotel. 6. Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that charge sheet was filed on 22.04.2022 after recording the statements of the said witnesses, namely, Manoj Rawat, Tushar Bora and Manohar Patiyal. However, in the earlier statements, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, these witnesses did not state that the recovered money, at the place of arrest, was returned to the applicant, which was again recovered from his pocket in the Hotel. This fact clearly shows that the applicant has been implicated in this matter. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. He is a permanent resident of District Dehradun. He is in custody since 28.02.2022, and, charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that the applicant has no criminal history. 9. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a very precious fundamental right. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 10. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a very precious fundamental right. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 10. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant-Kamleshwar Prasad Thapliyal be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :- i) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. 13. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.