Allowed

Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 May 2024BA1/398/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a bail application filed by a Head Master accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC for allegedly demanding money to fix equipment in a school. The court held the case fit for bail, noting the lack of evidence that money was taken to submit an inquiry report.

What did the court decide?

Allowing bail on applicant executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of like amount.

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand — Corruption | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

First Bail Application No.398 of 2024

¶3

Dinesh Kumar Sharma ….....Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶6

Present:-

¶7

Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State.

¶8

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶9

The applicant is in judicial custody FIR No.06 of 2024, dated 15.02.2024, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 34 IPC, Police Station Vigilance Establishment Sector Nainital, Haldwani, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

According to the prosecution, a complaint with regard to a private school in Kashipur was made. The District Authority has referred the matter to the applicant to look into it. But, the private school authority had made a complaint against the applicant that the applicant is threatening them and requiring

¶12

¶13

them to get an invertor or WIFI in the school or else, he demanded 16,000/-, but he subsequently agreed for 10,000/-.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, the applicant was required to look into the complaint; he has once visited the private school; he has not taken any bribe; he is a Head Master in the Basic School; the complainant had offered to get WIFI in the Government School or get an invertor in it. But subsequently, he himself offered `10,000/-. It is very much clear from the transcript of the conversation. It is argued that it is not a bribe. The conversation does not reveal that any inquiry report was to be submitted by the applicant. Learned counsel would also submit that Section 34 IPC has also been added while submitting the charge-sheet.

¶15

Learned State counsel would submit that it is a trap case. The applicant received `10,000/- from the complainant and transcript is also available.

¶16

The Court wanted to know from the learned State counsel that, as to whether in the transcript the applicant has demanded `10,000/- for giving a

¶17

¶18

favourable report? She would submit that it is not, as such recorded in the transcript. The applicant and the co-accused were simply asking for an inverter in the school in the name of the complainant.

¶19

It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is to be avoided. 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.

¶20

What is essentially alleged against the applicant is that being a Head Master of a Government School, he was directed to be looked into a complaint in a private school. The authority of the private school offered to give inverter or get WIFI in the Government school and subsequently, `10,000/- was given for that purpose because the co-accused Ankur had already provided WIFI connectivity in the Government School. The transcript reveals this only.

¶21

The applicant did not demand any money from the complainant. Even if, the prosecution case is believed, what was required is that an invertor was to

¶22

¶23

be given for the Government Basic School to be fixed in the name of complainant. It had not been shown that any inquiry report was to be submitted by the applicant. The transcript does not reveal that for clearing the case money was taken.

¶24

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶25

The bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶27

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.05.2024

¶28

Sanjay

Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate

Vivek Alias Babu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Arun Agarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vikas Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jeewan Ram Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amrit Pal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand