JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava and Sri Mohit Singh learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. This application is filed by the applicant with a prayer that the applicant may be released on bail in case Crime No. 182 of 2005, under Sections 7/13(1)d read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Sardhana, District Meerut.
3. From the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Sri B.P.S. Malik, Dy. S.P., Vigilance Department on 15.06.2005 at 4.30 p.m. against the applicant.
4. According to prosecution version one Rajpal made a written complaint to S.P. Vigilance Department, Meerut on 14.6.2005 alleging therein that the applicant being Lekhpal is realizing bribe at the pretext of measuring the cattle-field, and he has demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- as bribe from the complainant for sending the report in his favour, with regard to his possession, because he has constructed a house about four or five years back. The applicant was saying that the house was constructed in a cattle-field, the land of Gaonsabha. The complainant has given an application to S.D.M., Sardhana, Meerut on 7.6.2005 against the applicant that he was demanding a sum of Rs. 500/- as bribe and was threatening that in case the aforesaid amount is not given to him the correct measurement will not be done. Consequently, the complainant has accepted the demand of the applicant and he has given a promise to give him the same amount on 15.6.2005. On the basis of the application dated 14.6.2005 given by the complainant, the S.P. vigilance department, Meerut constituted a team, in that team two independent witnesses namely Raj Kamal Gupta, Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation and Sri Vipin Kumar Pathak, Senior Assistant were also included. The above mentioned independent witnesses were provided by C.D.O., Meerut in persuance of the order passed by District Magistrate, Meerut. The team was headed by the first informant Sri B.P.S. Malik, Dy. S.P. Meerut. On 15.6.2005 the trap team , the independent witnesses and complainant assembled at the office of the S.P. vigilance, Meerut at about 10.00 a.m. All the members of the trap team were apprised about the trap and a currency note of Rs. 500/- was given by the complainant to the first informant. On that note he had made his initial and that was tainted by phenolphthalein powder. The fard of that note was prepared. Thereafter, the same was handed over to the complainant with a caution that on demand of bribe the same note would be given to the applicant. Thereafter, the complainant kept that note in his left pocket of the shirt. Thereafter, the hands of the first informant and complainant were washed by sodium carbonate, which was converted into pink colour. The sample of that solution was taken, and was properly sealed and signed. Thereafter, the trap team along with witnesses the complainant proceeded from Meerut to Nagar Palika Compound, Sardhana by a vehicle Tata Spacio No. UP- 30-BG-0088 where they reached on 15.6.2005 at 12.30 p.m. The search of each other member of the team was taken but nothing incriminating was found. Thereafter, the trap team was divided into two parts. The first part was headed by the first informant and its members were Sri Raja Ram Nagar, Dy. S.P. vigilance Constable Nand Ram Yadav and witness Raj Kamal Gupta. The members of second party were Inspector Kamal Singh, Inspector Naresh Chandra Verma, Constable Jai Singh, witness Vipin Kumar Pathak and the complainant Raj Pal. At about 1.00 p.m. the applicant came from the north gate of the Nagar palika office and had a conversation with complainant Raj Pal in the veranda of the office the complainant asked the applicant for doing the measurement and he stated that as per promise given by him he has brought Rs. 500/- and had made a request to do the work by way of doing measurement. Thereafter, a note of Rs. 500/- was taken out from the pocket and given to the applicant. The same note was kept by the applicant in the pocket of his shirt. The conversation made between the complainant and the applicant was heard by the members of the trap team and saw the transaction of that money. Thereafter, the first informant has given a introduction and the applicant was caught red handed. From his possession the same note of Rs. 500/- was recovered which was the same note bearing the correct number as already written in its fard and it was having the signature of the first informant. Its recovery memo was prepared and the note kept in an envelop and the hands of the complainant and the applicant were washed by a sodium carbonate which has given a pink colour. Its sample was also sealed and from search of his shirt a sum of Rs. 1000/-, one duty card, photo prapatra No. 2 were recovered. The shirt of the applicant was also put off which was also sealed in a bundle.
5. The applicant has confessed his guilt that he has accepted the bribe of Rs. 500/- for doing measurement of the land of the complainant. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged at the police station concerned and the applicant was handed over to the police.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the purpose for which the money was given was not in existence, because the report dated 25.5.2005 sent to the S.D.M. concerned by Nayab Tahseeldar shows that in village Jalalpur, Akheypur, Gata No. 86 area 2.290 is recorded as a cattle-field in the revenue record. The complainant and his brother has made a unauthorized construction over a part of that land and they were not ready to remove the same because the complainant is a criminal. Due to this construction there is apprehension of breach of peace in the village. The order dated 12.6.2005 passed by S.D.M., Sardhana shows that the Nayab Tahsildar was directed to ensure that he has made unauthorized construction over the land of Gaonsabha and report dated 4.6.2005 sent by the Tahseeldar shows that the unauthorized construction of the complainant was removed.
7. It is contended that in such circumstances there was no question of doing measurement. It is further contended that the trap was not properly made by this team because there was no proper conversation and the applicant has not demanded any bribe, even a word was not spoken by the applicant and nowhere it has been mentioned that the applicant has demanded bribe of Rs. 500/- to give a particular favour to the complainant. The alleged recovered note of Rs. 500/- was not sealed at the spot. It is further contended that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ill will of the complainant and others.
8. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that the purpose for which the applicant had demanded and accepted the bribe was not frustrated because there was a dispute over the land which was recorded as a cattle-field in the revenue record, but the complainant was claiming it because he had made construction over that land. In such circumstances the measurement of that land was a necessary requirement and to give a favour to the complainant the applicant has demanded the bribe of Rs. 500/-.
9. It is further contended that there was no illegality in operation of trap. The team was properly constituted under the direction of the S.P. Vigilance, Meerut. That team was headed by the first informant, Dy. S.P. of Vigilance and other members of the team were Dy. S.P., Inspectors and police constables and the proceedings of the trap were done in the presence of two independent witnesses who were provided by the C.D.O. Meerut in pursuance of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut. The note of Rs. 500/- which was given to the applicant as a bribe was tainted with phenolphthalein powder. It was bearing the initial and its fard was already prepared in which the number of the note was mentioned. The sodium carbonate was used which gave a positive result, because the colour of solution has become pink and the complainant had disclosed the purpose for which the money was given. The applicant had accepted the bribe and kept in pocket. The proceedings of trap were done in accordance with the provisions of law.
10. It is further contended that no reason is shown by the applicant in respect of his false implication and the applicant is in jail since 15.6.2005. He has remained in jail for a very short period. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
11. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail.
12. Let the Applicant Dharampal Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 182 of 2005, under Sections 7/13(1)D read with Section 13(2) of Prevention Act, P.S. Sardhama, District Meerut be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.