Gauhati High Court
Ranjit Kumar Borah vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 26 July, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010112232022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1410/2022
RANJIT KUMAR BORAH
SON OF LATE DEBENDRA CHANDRA BORAH
R/O 2B AND 2C, UTSAV KANAN SOCIETY, HENGRABARI ROAD,
HENGRABARI, P.S. DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781036, DIST. KAMRUP (M),
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
REP. BY THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL, CBI.
Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri H.K. Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
26.07.2022
1. Heard Shri H.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, namely, Shri Ranjit Kumar Borah, who has filed this bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying for bail in connection with CBI, AC-1, New Delhi, Case No. RC AC12021A0011, under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7/8/11 of PC Act.
2. The petitioner was arrested on 14.12.2021.[
3. At the outset, the learned counsel has fairly submitted that on an earlier occasion, this Court vide an order dated 01.04.2022 has rejected the application for Page No.# 2/8 bail of the petitioner.
4. Pursuant to the order dated 24.06.2022, Shri S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CBI has produced the Case Diary.
5. To examine the issue regarding grant of bail, the facts of the case may be noted down briefly.
6. The case registered is with regard to criminal conspiracy, demand and acceptance of bribe by public servants obtaining undue advantage without consideration by public servants. The prosecution's version is that during the year 2020-2021, the petitioner who was working as the Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer/Coaching, N.F. Railway entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Chintan Jain, who is a Director of a Company namely M/s Sunshine Devices Private Limited and a Sister Concern Firm M/s Sunshine at Patna and had extended undue favours in connection with various contracts of the NF Railway in lieu of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. In the aforesaid manner, the petitioner was favoured with two numbers of immovable properties as illegal gratifications. However, on 28.10.2021, the petitioner had demanded from Chintan Jain illegal gratification of Rs. 2.10 crores in lieu of the two immovable properties. There was also a demand for a mobile phone worth Rs. 1.3 lakhs by the petitioner.
7. In course of the demand, various amounts were paid from time to time. On 14.12.2021, an amount was allegedly collected by one Shri Niraj Kumar, employee of Shri Chintan Jain from Shri Vijay Kumar Upadhyay, who was working as Chief Engineer (Electrical), N.F. Railway, Maligaon and was delivered to the petitioner. It was at that stage, when the investigating agency had intervened and recovery of Rs. 15 lakhs (approximately) was made. Allegations of recovery of Rs. 2.12 crores (approx) from the residence of Shri Vijay Kumar Upadhyay at NOIDA is also there.
8. Shri Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier round of litigation wherein three nos. of bail petitions were moved together, the thrust Page No.# 3/8 was more on default bail by stating that even without completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet was filed just prior to expiry of the statutory period. However, the said contention was not accepted and accordingly, the bail petitions were rejected.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as on date the petitioner is behind the bars for 213 days and the Charge Sheet has been filed and charges are to be framed. He further submits that one co-accused has already been released on bail. As regards to the other aspects of the matter, it is submitted that the petitioner who was the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Railways has also been dismissed from service and already suffered immensely and therefore, the petitioner be released on bail so that he is in a better position to prepare his defence.
10. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance from the following case laws:
(i) Prahalad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280];
(ii) Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40]
(iii) Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273]
(iv) Karti P. Chidambaram v. CBI [2018 SCC Online Del 7999]
(v) Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713],
(vi) Siddharth vs. State of UP [2021 SCC Online 615],
(vii) Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI [(2021) 10 SCC 773].
(viii) Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI [2022 SCC Online SC 825].
11. In the case of Prahalad Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that grant of bail should be preceded by a conclusion that there is no reasonable ground to belief that the accused is guilty of heinous offence. It is further been held that only because of the fact that initially the accused was granted Anticipatory Bail for a lesser offence, that by itself would not entitled him for grant of regular bail for a graver offence.
12. In the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was Page No.# 4/8 considering applications for bail connected with the 2G spectrum scam. The Hon'ble Court had discussed the factors which are liable to be taken into consideration for grant of bail and emphasized on having a balanced approach in such matters.
13. In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately discussed the subject on bail and had also laid down certain guidelines whereby arrest could be avoided. The importance of notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. has also been discussed.
14. Though the case of Karti P. Chidambaram (supra) has been cited, the same is of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and would only have a persuasive value.
15. In the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining the concept of Article 21 of the Constitution of India with the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. It is further reiterated that grant of bail has to be in exercise of discretion which is required to be done only on relevant considerations.
16. The case of Siddharth (supra) is not applicable as in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that Anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely on the ground that Charge Sheet was ready to be filed.
17. In the case of Satender Kumar Antil, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorized various offences and has issued guidelines for grant of bail based on such categorization. In the subsequent case of the same parties recently decided on 11.07.2022, the earlier categorization has been expanded and detailed guidelines has been laid down by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in earlier cases.
18. Per contra, Shri Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail. By referring to the objection by way of affidavit filed on 18.07.2022, it is submitted that the allegations are very serious in nature which involves a bribe amount of Rs.2.10 Crores and the said allegations is in connection Page No.# 5/8 with favouring a third party with constructions works by the petitioner who was the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Railways. It is submitted that the present accused was apprehended while accepting the bribe of Rs.15 lakhs approximately at his residence at Guwahati. It is further submitted that as many as 31 calls were made between the present petitioner and another accused who had offered the bribe amount and there are prima facie materials to come to a finding that based on the same, the present petitioner is liable to be convicted. By drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph 22 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation. It is further submitted that some more important witnesses are to be examined and crucial documentary elements are to be unearthed and collected.
19. In support of his submissions, the learned Standing Counsel, CBI has placed reliance upon the following case laws:
(i) Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta vs. CBI & Anr. [AIR 2012 SC 949].
(ii) Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 446].
(iii) Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI [(2013) 7 SCC 439].
(iv) Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI [(2013) 7 SCC 466].
(v) State of Bihar vs. Amit Kumar [(2017) 13 SCC 751].
20. In the case of Dipak Subhaschandra Mehta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a caveat that in case of involvement of economic offence of high magnitude, grant of bail has to be supported by reasons.
21. In the case of Ash Mohammad (supra), while balancing individual liberty with public order, it has been held that individual liberty cannot be accentuated with such an extent or alleviate to such high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society.
22. In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court Page No.# 6/8 while dealing with economic offences has laid down the following:
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep- rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."
23. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the views expressed in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy regarding economic offences.
24. In the case of Amit Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court once again has reiterated the position regarding the ill effects of Socio Economic Offences and has also laid down that length of tenure in custody may not be the only factor of consideration for grant of bail. For ready reference, the relevant extract is quoted herein below:
"8. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High Court has not given any reasoning while granting bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more on the fact that the accused is already in custody for a long time. When the seriousness of the offence is such the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the courts. We are not able to appreciate such a casual approach while granting bail in a case which has the effect of undermining the trust of people in the integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar."
Page No.# 7/8
25. The learned Standing Counsel, CBI accordingly prays for rejection of the bail petition.
26. The rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court has been carefully examined. After hearing the parties, the factors in favour and against the petitioner may be culled down as follows:
IN FAVOUR AGAINST Length of detention from 14.12.2021 Magnitude of the offence Completion of investigation by filing Nature of the allegations wherein the of Charge Sheet. petitioner was caught red handed accepting bribe.
Petitioner already dismissed from Petitioner is not cooperating with the service. investigation / prosecution.
Petitioner is a Government Servant. The offence involved is a socio economic offence which has the propensity to destroy the society.
One co-accused has been released Case of each accused has to be on bail. examined on the facts & circumstances pertaining to him.
27. This Court is also taken aid of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal vs. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 4 SCC 642], wherein the following observations have been made:
"26. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to Page No.# 8/8 progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. It is worth noting that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have suffered. The only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with the constitutional morality."
28. Further, in the case of Subramaniam Swamy vs. Director CBI [(2014) 8 SCC 682], a similar observation has been made which is extracted herein below:
"75. Corruption corrodes the moral fabric of the society and corruption by public servants not only leads to corrosion of the moral fabric of the society but is also harmful to the national economy and national interest, as the persons occupying high posts in the Government by misusing their power due to corruption can cause considerable damage to the national economy, national interest and image of the country."
29. After considering the pros and cons as indicated above and taking into account the guidelines laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court mainly in the cases of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra) as reiterated in Nimmagadda Prasad (supra) and also the cases of Niranjan Hemchandra (supra) and Subramaniam Swamy (supra) this Court is of the view that the present petition cannot succeed. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
30. Records produced by Shri Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CBI are returned back.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant