Uttarakhand High Court
Yashbir Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 13 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
1
Judgment reserved on: 04.06.2025
Judgment delivered on:13.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.811 of 2022
Yashbir Singh Bisht ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Vikas
Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/
respondent No.1.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)
By means of the present C482 application, the
applicant has challenged the cognizance/summoning order
dated 08.10.2021, passed by learned Special Judge,
Anticorruption (Vigilance), Dehradun, in the Special
Sessions Trial No.08 of 2021 State Vs. Yashbir Singh Bisht,
under Section 7, 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 read with Section 34 IPC, along with the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.
2. As per the prosecution story, the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Establishment,
Dehradun had received a complaint by one Shri Zulfikar
Ahmad S/o Ijhar Ahmad on 19.11.2019, wherein, it has
been alleged that he was having a Tractor U.K. 07 BF 4367,
which was registered as agriculture vehicle, however, since
the complainant was having the business of supply of
building materials, he wished to convert the aforesaid
Tractor to a commercial vehicle and accordingly had made
an application in this regard on 19.11.2019 along with
other formalities. The complainant had also deposited the
prescribed fees of Rs.4200/- on the same day. It has
further been alleged in the said complaint that when he
2
reached the counter No.4 to obtain the registration
certificate of commercial vehicle, the employee posted there
namely Monu had asked a sum of Rs.6,000/-, however, he
was told that the complainant has already deposited the
prescribed fees of Rs.4200/-, however, the said employee
Monu had informed that if he wanted registration
certificate, he had to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/-, the said
employee called the complainant on 20.11.2019 to pay a
sum of Rs.6,000/-. The complainant alleged that he did not
want to pay the bribe and hence, appropriate proceeding be
undertaken against such corrupt official. The aforesaid
complaint was preferred on 19.11.2019. The application
was marked for preliminary inquiry and thereafter, it was
agreed that the trap will be conducted on 20.11.2019. The
office of the District Magistrate, Dehradun had also been
approached for providing two independent witnesses on
20.11.2019 itself and two independent witnesses namely
Sanjay Rawat and Sanjay Chandola had also been
nominated on the same day by the District Magistrate
Dehradun. As the complainant could not arrange a sum of
money to be paid as bribe, hence, the proceedings of pre-
trap was deferred for next day i.e.21.11.2019. The
Inspector who had been assigned the duties to carry out
the preliminary inquiry regarding the correctness of the
allegations made, had submitted the report that since on
19.11.2019, the complaint was received at late hours and
the verification of the complaint could not be carried out on
19.11.2019, hence, the verification could only be done on
20.11.2019. In the said preliminary inquiry, the case had
been established that Monu is not an employee of the
Regional Transport Office, but it is Yashbir Singh Bisht,
who had engaged said Monu to receive illegal bribe and
Monu @ Sandeep Kumar was used as conduit. The
aforesaid report was submitted on 20.11.2019, however,
the trap lying officer submitted the application to SSP,
3
Vigilance Establishment that since he was directed on
19.11.2019 to conduct trap on 20.11.2019 and sought
permission regarding the constitution of team and other
formalities required. Simultaneously, the Superintendent of
Police, Vigilance had written to District Magistrate,
Dehradun on 20.11.2019, wherein, he sought independent
witnesses before 01:00 PM and trap was laid on
21.11.2019. The complainant paid Rs. 6000/- to one
person, who later on disclosed his name as Pradeep Kumar
s/o Ghanshyam. The complainant further clarified that
Monu had told him to pay the money to Monu, who was
found sitting in Counter No.4D. When grilled, Monu
disclosed that he worked for the applicant-Yashbir Singh
Bisht, who was a Government Servant and sit in Counter
No.4. Monu told about himself that he was a private person
and worked as a pimp for the applicant. Accordingly,
applicant along with Monu and Pradeep Kumar were
arrested and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
against them.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
in the present case, the applicant has falsely been
implicated for the offences alleged under Section 7, 7-A of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section
34 IPC, as when the trap proceedings were being carried
out on 21.11.2019, the applicant was not even present in
his office. He further submits that in the complaint, there
were no allegations made against the applicant for
demanding any money. He also submits that when the
complainant was confronted with the applicant, he even
failed to recognize him, which further shows that the
applicant is being falsely implicated.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that
post conclusion of the investigation, Vigilance Department
had applied for sanction of prosecution, which is supposed
4
to be provided by the Appointing Authority of the applicant,
who in this case was Additional Transport Commissioner
(ATC). He further contends that the Additional Chief
Secretary, Personnel and Vigilance, in furtherance of a
recommendation from Director, Vigilance Department, had
directed the Department of Transport to provide
appropriate sanction of prosecution (SoP) against the
applicant on 10.01.2020 and accordingly, on 14.01.2020,
Additional Secretary, Department of Transport, had written
to the Transport Commissioner to take necessary steps to
provide SoP.
5. It is further contended by learned counsel for
the applicant that the ATC was not convinced about the
facts and circumstances and the evidences collected in this
regard and on 06.12.2019 had also directed the ARTO,
Rishikesh to conduct an inquiry in the matter. ARTO,
Rishikesh submitted an inquiry report on 30.07.2021 and
no allegations against the applicant could be substantiated
in the said report. It is also contended by him that the
Vigilance Department started mounting undue pressure on
Secretary, Department of Transport, to provide SoP within
a week and on a later date, the State Vigilance Committee
itself considered the matter and again created undue
pressure to take a decision on sanction. He further submits
that it was only after the superannuation of ATC, the
Transport Commissioner under the directions of State
Government provided the SoP.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently
argues that the SoP granted and cognizance taken by the
learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, are bad in law, as
the due process under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not adhered
to. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon a
judgment dated 24.07.2015 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka in
5
Criminal Appeal No.1867 of 2012. He also relied upon a
judgment dated 18.06.2020 of Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of D. Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain in
Criminal Appeal No.458 of 2020.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that
the present case consists of disputed set of facts which can
only be decided before the learned Trial Court. He further
submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of
judgments has held that the power of High Court under
Section 482 is extraordinary in nature and should be
exercised only in the rarest of rare occasions.
8. Learned State Counsel further submits that if
present C482 is allowed, then a wrong precedent will be
set, where corrupt government officials will start indulging
in acts of bribery through others, much like in the present
case.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and
on perusal of the materials available on record, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the present case consists
of multiple sets of disputed facts viz. faulty trap laying
process, public servant taking bribe through an agent;
agent (Monu) not himself being a public servant but
collecting bribe on behalf of applicant who is a public
servant, which can only be settled before the learned Trial
Court, as this Court at the stage of 482 Cr.P.C. doesn’t
have jurisdiction to sift the evidence. Thereafter, it will not
be appropriate to stifle the prosecution at this stage.
Furthermore, the sanction of prosecution against the
applicant was eventually granted by an appropriate
authority and the argument of learned counsel for the
applicant that the sanction of prosecution was not granted
by the learned Additional Transport Commissioner,
therefore, does not suffice. Moreover, the present case does
not fall within the ambit of ‘rarest of rare’ category, and
6
therefore, this Court does not consider it necessary to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
because, this Court is of the opinion that entertaining such
a matter would set a dangerous precedent that can open up
a Pandora’s box, enabling corrupt government officials to
adopt a similar modus operandi in the future.
10. In a catena of judgments, Hon’ble Apex Court
has also held that the High Court should be slow in
interfering with criminal proceedings, if prima-facie the
case is made out against the applicant. Section 7 and
Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, have been
enacted by legislation in its wisdom to tackle these types of
situations, which are quoted herein below:
“7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed:
Any public servant who,-
(a)obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an
undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause
performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear
or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by
another public servant; or
(b)obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue
advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or
dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform
such duty either by himself or another public servant; or
(c)performs or induces another public servant to perform
improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance
of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an
undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years
but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Explanation 1. – For the purpose of this section, the obtaining,
accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall
itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty
by public servant, is not or has not been improper.
Illustration. – A public servant, ‘S’ asks a person, ‘P’ to give him an
amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card
application on time. ‘S’ is guilty of an offence under this section.
Explanation 2. – For the purpose of this section,-
(i)the expressions “obtains” or “accepts” or “attempts to obtain”
shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains
or “accepts” or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for
himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public
servant or by using his personal influence over another public
servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;
(ii). it shall be immaterial whether such person being a
public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the
undue advantage directly or through a third party.
7
7A. Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by
corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal
influence.-Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from
another person for himself or for any other person any undue
advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by
corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to
perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or
dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by
such public servant or by another public servant, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall
also be liable to fine.”
11. Furthermore, after going through the judgments
supplied by the applicant, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the matter in hand, prima facie, consists of
disputed facts and allegations, the truth of which could
only be found out by a proper trial. Since, the offences
lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature and
prima-facie a case is made out against the applicant, it is
essential for the ends of justice that the applicant should
be subjected to a proper trial. Judgments rendered by the
Apex Court in Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka and D.
Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain (supra) are not of
any help to the applicant in the given facts and situation of
the present case.
12. Recently, in the case of Neeharika,
Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401,
it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that criminal
case shall not be scuttled at the initial stage. Relevant sub-
paras of Para 33 of the said judgment are quoted
hereunder:-
“33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the “rarest
of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in the
context of death penalty).
33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which
is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint;
33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
8
33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on
merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out
a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in
the FIR;
13. After keeping the above principle in mind, this
Court is of the opinion that as prima-facie case is made out
against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been
submitted and the applicant was summoned after
cognizance, this Court cannot enter into merits of the case
at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only
be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce
their respective evidences.
14. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
13.08.2025
PN