Krishna Singh Kanyal vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The applicant, Krishna Singh Kanyal, an Executive Engineer, is in judicial custody in connection with a case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant, Vishan Singh, a contractor, alleged that the applicant demanded illegal gratification for payment made for a government contract. The complainant reported the matter to the vigilance on 20.05.2024, leading to a verification report and a trap laid on 22.05.2024. The prosecution claims the applicant was caught red-handed accepting the money, with his hand wash turning pink. Pre-trap and post-trap memos were prepared. The applicant sought release on bail, arguing the trap was planned and failed, with allegations of money being forcibly stuffed into his pocket.

Held

The Court held that while demand and acceptance are essential to prove guilt, at the bail stage, it is not expected to make a final determination. The Court acknowledged that demand and acceptance can be inferred from circumstances. The complainant's categorical statement regarding the applicant demanding 20% of the payment was noted. The pre-trap conversation of 20.05.2024 was on record, and although the Court refrained from deep scrutiny, it observed that in the conversation, the applicant quoted an amount in response to the complainant's query about the payment. The Court also noted the State's submission that the 20% was of the net payment after GST deduction, as explained by Inspector Bhanu Prakash Arya. Coupled with the trap and acceptance of money, the prosecution presented a case of demand and acceptance. Therefore, the Court found no reason to grant bail to the applicant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant's arguments regarding the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the lack of independent witnesses, doubtful CCTV footage, and a potentially planted trap, raise sufficient doubt to warrant bail? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contended that there was no demand or acceptance of illegal gratification, and the alleged conversation did not reflect any demand. They argued that the transaction took place in a resort without CCTV evidence, there was no independent witness, the shadow witness was doubtful, and the trap was flawed as the complainant forgot to switch on the recording device. Furthermore, it was argued that the applicant was invited for dinner, served liquor, and money was forcibly stuffed into his pocket, suggesting a planted trap. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that in trap cases and cases of illegal gratification, legal presumptions exist, and the totality of circumstances must be considered. They stated the complainant was reluctant to pay the demanded illegal gratification of 20% of the payment. The report was verified, a trap was laid, and the conversation on 20.05.2024 reflected the demand. The State counsel read portions of the transcript showing the applicant quoting the amount at 20% of the payment.