Uttarakhand High Court Criticizes Vigilance Haldwani for Procedural Lapses in Corruption Case; Grants Bail to Officer

Haldwani, Uttarakhand: The functioning of the Vigilance Haldwani department came under intense scrutiny during a hearing at the Uttarakhand High Court, leading to sharp criticism from the bench regarding significant malpractice in investigation and procedural violations in a high-profile corruption trap case.

The court, presided over by Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, was hearing the bail application of Ms. Santi Bhandari, a gazetted officer implicated in FIR No. 0018/2024. Justice Thapliyal expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Vigilance department's handling of the investigation, particularly questioning the filing of a chargesheet despite major evidentiary gaps.

A key point of contention was the complete absence of any video recording of the alleged trap operation. The court noted that the crucial No Trap Video evidence was neither part of the investigation record nor submitted with the chargesheet. Compounding this issue, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report is also still pending (FSL Report Pending). Despite these critical omissions, the Investigating Officer (IO) proceeded to file the chargesheet, a move the court found premature and perplexing.

During the hearing conducted via video conferencing, the Investigating Officer, IO Vinod Yadav, when questioned by the court about these lapses, expressed embarrassment and stated, "Sorry" (IO Vinod Yadav Sorry). While acknowledging the apology, Justice Thapliyal, demonstrating judicial magnanimity, chose not to formally record the IO's admission of fault.

However, the court issued a stern directive (High Court Order Against Vigilance). It ordered (Judicial Affidavit Order) both IO Vinod Yadav and the Director Vigilance Uttarakhand to submit personal affidavits within three days. These affidavits must explain the justification for filing a chargesheet without the requisite trap video evidence and pending FSL report.

The hearing also brought to light a previous instance of alleged misconduct by the same IO and Trap Leader. The court was informed that in a prior case, a fake affidavit had been submitted to the court (Fake Affidavit Vigilance), falsely claiming that a video recording of the trap existed. When the court subsequently demanded the video, no such recording could be produced, suggesting a deliberate attempt to mislead the judiciary. Such acts potentially attract serious legal consequences for giving false evidence, pertinent under laws like BNSS Section 105 (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

Furthermore, the court strongly objected (Court Criticism Vigilance) to the Vigilance department's practice of publicizing its raids and trap actions through newspaper advertisements before trial (Advertisement Before Trial). Justice Thapliyal questioned the legality and ethics of this approach, asking, "Which SOP allows for publicizing raids before the trial? Can you declare someone guilty before the court convicts them?" This practice was flagged as a clear SOP Violation and a disregard for the fundamental principle of Presumption of Innocence, where an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The proceedings also referenced the tragic case of Mr. Baluni, described as a "Dead Honest Officer" from the Railways department. It was mentioned that Mr. Baluni tragically died by suicide (Vigilance Suicide Case), allegedly due to mental harassment after being falsely implicated in a case by the Vigilance department. This incident was cited as a grim example of the potential human cost of investigative overreach. The information regarding these systemic issues was reportedly highlighted through investigations conducted by Asarkari (Asarkari Investigation).

Court's Key Observations and Orders:

1. Chargesheet filed despite pending trap video report and incomplete investigation.
2. Affidavits demanded from the IO and the Director Vigilance.
3. Interim Santi Bhandari Bail granted, with the next hearing scheduled for April 4, 2025.
4. Oral criticism regarding SOP Violation and pre-trial publicity affecting judicial process.

The revelations have led to calls, amplified by organizations like Asarkari, for an independent judicial inquiry into Vigilance Haldwani's operations, criminal action against officials submitting false affidavits under relevant sections (like IPC 191, 193 or BNSS Section 105), formulation of new guidelines to prevent SOP Violation, and a prohibition on media publicity that pre-judges individuals before conviction. The overarching sentiment stressed the need for investigative agencies to operate strictly within the bounds of law and evidence to uphold justice and maintain public faith, preventing further tragedies like the Baluni case.