Umed Singh Bisht vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The applicant, Umed Singh Bisht, a State Tax Officer, is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 06 of 2023, dated 05.09.2023, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleges that a co-accused, Deepak Mehta, was caught red-handed demanding ₹3,000/- for clearing a GST registration matter. Deepak Mehta allegedly revealed that he was collecting the money for the applicant. The applicant was arrested based solely on the statement of the co-accused. The amount in dispute, if any, is not explicitly stated beyond the ₹3,000/- demand.

Held

The Court held that the applicant has been apprehended based on the statement of the co-accused, which is considered a vague kind of evidence. The Court noted that at the bail stage, extensive discussion on merits should be avoided, and any observations made are without prejudice to the final outcome of the case. The Court found that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. The reasoning is that the evidence against the applicant is primarily the statement of a co-accused, which the court deems vague. The State also conceded that the applicant did not make any demand or receive money. Therefore, the court concluded that the case is fit for bail. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail based on the evidence on record, particularly the statement of the co-accused, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? The petitioner argued that he never demanded or received any money, and his implication is solely based on the statement of the co-accused, which he considers vague evidence. The petitioner contended that he has been arrested and implicated merely on the basis of the co-accused's statement. The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, conceded that neither a demand was made by the applicant nor was any money given to him. The State's submission was that the co-accused Deepak Mehta demanded the money, was caught with it, and it was he who revealed that he was collecting money for the applicant as well.