JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 05 of 2023, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Vigilance Sector, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The applicant is a Revenue Officer. The complainant had approached the applicant for mutation of his name, after the death of his father, but the applicant demanded money. The complainant reported the matter to the Vigilance. A Preliminary Inquiry was done. The demand was recorded and after verifying, a trap was laid on 24.04.2024; the conversation, which took place at the time of giving bribe was also recorded and the applicant was caught red-handed with the bribe. A post trap memo was prepared and his hand-wash turned pink. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that to get mutation was not official task of the applicant. Therefore, no offence is made out. He would refer to Annexure-3, an information given under Right to Information Act, 2005, particularly, an answer to Point No.3 has been referred to, which records that inquiry and mutation in the undisputed succession is not a job of Survey Lekhpal. It is also argued that the applicant is in custody for more than one year. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that it is the applicant whose job is to make changes in the Khatauni; it is the applicant’s job; he demanded money; his conversation was recorded. The Forensic Science Laboratory report also confirmed the voice and hand-wash turned pink. 6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected of. To the extent of appreciating the controversy, the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation, made at this stage, shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case. 7. The applicant being a Revenue Officer, demanded illegal gratification for discharge of his official duties. The demand, as made was recorded by the complainant. The transcript is on record. Not only this, when the trap was laid, the conversation that took place at the relevant time was also recorded and the transcript has been placed for perusal of the Court. 8. It is a clear case of demand of Rs.10,000/-. The demand, as made was recorded by the complainant. The transcript is on record. Not only this, when the trap was laid, the conversation that took place at the relevant time was also recorded and the transcript has been placed for perusal of the Court. 8. It is a clear case of demand of Rs.10,000/-. When the money was given, the applicant was arrested, caught red-handed and his hand-wash turned pink. It is a very serious offence. It consequences and ramification are very grave in the society. 9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 10. The bail application is rejected.