Deepak Mehta vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The applicant, Deepak Mehta, is seeking bail in FIR No. 06 of 2023, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant, an outsourced employee in a Government Department, allegedly demanded Rs. 8,000 from Manoj Joshi for clearing his GST registration application, which had been rejected thrice. The amount was later settled at Rs. 3,000. Manoj Joshi recorded the telephonic conversation and lodged a report. A trap was laid, and the applicant was apprehended red-handed while receiving the money. Pre- and post-trap memos were prepared, and the applicant's handwash turned pink, indicating the presence of the bribe money. The charge sheet has been filed.

Held

The Court held that there were no grounds to enlarge the applicant on bail. The reasoning was based on the serious allegations against the applicant, who was accused of demanding illegal gratification for the performance of his duties. The Court noted the complainant's statement that his GST registration application had been rejected multiple times before he approached the applicant, who then demanded money. The existence of telephonic conversations, the preparation of pre- and post-trap memos, and the applicant being caught red-handed with the bribe money (indicated by the pink handwash) were significant factors. The Court emphasized that corruption is a curse on the nation's economy and that the applicant was caught in the act of demanding and receiving money for his official duties. Therefore, the bail application was rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, an outsourced employee, is entitled to bail considering the allegations of demanding and accepting illegal gratification for performing his official duties, as per Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? The petitioner argued that he was an outsourced employee, the amount involved was small, the charge sheet had been filed, and there was no risk of tampering with witnesses or fleeing justice. He also contended that his family would face hardship if he remained in custody. The State argued that the applicant demanded and received money, supported by telephonic conversations and that all legal procedures for arrest were followed. The Court was to consider these arguments in the context of the bail application.