Allahabad High Court
Sunil Dutt vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary (Home) ... on 30 October, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18748 of 2019 Applicant :- Sunil Dutt Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary (Home) And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ronak Chaturvedi,Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Khanna Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gyan Prakash Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Shri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and in opposition Shri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for C.B.I. and Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
2. By way of instant bail application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant to enlarge the applicant on bail in RC No. 2172019A0001, under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") read with Section 7(c), 7-A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "Act, 1988"), Police Station - SPE/CBI/ACU-VI, New Delhi.
3. As per first information report dated 02.02.2019 lodged by Shri Ajay Kumar, Superintendent of Police, ACU-VI/AC-II/New Delhi, reliable information was received that co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore @ V.S. Rathore, Inspector, C.B.I., A.C.B., Ghaziabad on deputation from Uttar Pradesh Police, accused-applicant Sunil Dutt, Assistant Sub-Inspector, C.B.I. Academy, Ghaziabad were indulging in illegal and corrupt practices. The other co-accused Ranbir Singh, posted as tehsildar in U.P. Administration was a suspect in Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (for short "YEIDA") Land Scam cases registered at Police Station - Kasna, District - Gautam Budha Nagar and the investigation of YEIDA case was learnt to be under the process of transfer to C.B.I. by the Government of U.P. Co-accused Ranbir Singh entered into a conspiracy with co-accused V.S. Rathore, the accused-applicant and unknown officials of the U.P. Police, in order to obtain undue relief for himself and other suspected accused from the U.P. Police. Three accomplices of co-accused Ranbir Singh surrendered themselves and joined the investigation a few days ago. In lieu of obtaining relief for them from custodial harassment, co-accused Ranbir Singh has already paid an illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 10 Lakhs on demand on 31.01.2019 to co-accused V.S. Rathore and accused-applicant, who are learnt to be managing the investigation of the case with the help of unknown officials of U.P. Police. In the same case, in lieu of showing nil recovery report in respect of the accomplices of co-accused Ranbir Singh during their police remand, co-accused V.S. Rathore and the accused-applicant have demanded illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 25 Lakhs from co-accused Ranbir Singh for managing the aforementioned YEIDA cases in favour of the accused by influencing unknown officials of the U.P. Police and others and that co-accused Ranbir Singh had agreed to pay Rs. 20 Lakhs as illegal gratification to co-accused V.S. Rathore and the accused-applicant. It was also informed that one Shri Y. Tomar, resident of Sainik Farm, Delhi is in possession of large amount of money belonging to co-accused Ranbir Singh, which he was due to collect from him and would deliver the same to co-accused V.S. Rathore and the accused-applicant on 02.02.2019.
4. Pursuant to the said information, as mentioned in the F.I.R., trap proceedings were conducted on 02.02.2019 and after completing pre-trap proceedings, as per memo of the trap proceedings annexed at Page Nos. 39-46 of the Paper Book, at about 07.00 A.M., a silver-coloured Maruti Swift Dzire Car entered into Supertech Livingston Society where co-accused V.S. Rathore was living and a person who had got down from the Swift Dzire Car was co-accused Ranbir Singh. The trap team challenged co-accused Ranbir Singh, whereon he became pertubed. Co-accused V.S. Rathore stated that he did not demand any bribe from co-accused Ranbir Singh and that he had come to his house along with an amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs today in the morning on his own for pursuing their case, being Criminal Case No. 421/2018 pending at Kasna Police Station. He further stated that he tried to contact Nishank Sharma, Dy. S.P. over phone, but he did not respond, whereafter he sent a message to him on his mobile, seeking appointment for meeting, but he did not reply to the message also. Co-accused Ranbir Singh had entered into the house of co-accused V.S. Rathore carrying a green bag, which was kept on a tea table and when the same was checked by the trap team, an amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs was found therein. Co-accused Ranbir Singh further disclosed in the presence of the trap team that the Kasna Police was suspecting the involvement of co-accused Shri V.P. Singh, an official of Yamuna Expressway Authority (for short "YEWA") during relevant time. Co-accused Ranbir Singh also disclosed that he is acquainted with accused-applicant Sunil Dutt, ASI, C.B.I., Ghaziabad and that he had approached him in the month of August, 2018 to get some favour in the case at Kasna Police Station. Thereafter, in the month of December, 2018, the accused-applicant brought him to co-accused V.S. Rathore at Flat No. 1101. During interaction, co-accused Ranbir Singh told him that he was well-acquainted with Nishank Sharma, Dy. S.P., who was the Investigating Officer of the said case at Kasna Police Station and assured him that he would speak to Nishank Sharma and get a favourable decision in Kasna Police Station's case. On that date, co-accused V.S. Rathore had demanded an amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs as bribe from co-accused Ranbir Singh towards initial installment of bribe for getting a favourable decision in the above case of Kasna Police Station. Co-accused Ranbir Singh also disclosed before the trap team that he along with the accused-applicant again met co-accused V.S. Rathore in the aforesaid Flat No. 1101 on 31.01.2019 in the evening and disclosed the said case of Kasna Police Station to him and on that date, co-accused V.S. Rathore demanded Rs. 20 Lakhs towards initial installment of bribe from Ranbir Singh to pursue Nishank Sharma in order to get a favourable decision in respect of co-accused Ranbir Singh, V.P. Singh and their relatives in the aforesaid case of Kasna Police Station. On 31.01.2019, co-accused V.S. Rathore asked co-accused Ranbir Singh to give amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs to him on 02.02.2019 at Flat No. 1101 in the morning and that after receiving the said amount, he will pursue the matter with Nishank Sharma. Co-accused Ranbir Singh further disclosed to the trap team that he discussed the matter of demand of Rs. 20 Lakhs by co-accused V.S. Rathore with V.P. Singh yesterday i.e. on 01.02.2019 over phone and he also agreed to give the above said demanded amount to V.S. Rathore for getting a favourable decision. Shri V.P. Singh told co-accused Ranbir Singh to collect the amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs from his relative Wing Commander Yashvir Singh (Retd.) residing in New Delhi and accordingly, he went there to his house in Maruti Swift Dzire Car today in early morning and collected the said amount from his wife Smt. Manisha. Co-accused Ranbir Singh further disclosed that after collecting Rs. 22 Lakhs from the residence of W.C. Yashvir Singh, he took one bundle containing Rs. 2 Lakhs and kept the same in his pant pocket while the remaining Rs. 20 Lakhs were kept by him in a green carry bag and came to the residence of co-accused V.S. Rathore, but the accused-applicant informed him over phone that due to some medical emergency of his father, he had to return home. The said amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs found in the carry bag kept on the center table in the living room of co-accused V.S. Rathore was found to have been demanded and accepted by co-accused V.S. Rathore from co-accused Ranbir Singh as bribe, which has been seized.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated because he has nothing to do with the present offence as no recovery has been made from him and even the investigation of the aforementioned crime number related to Kasna Police Station is still continuing with the civil police and has not been handed over to the C.B.I. At the most, his role can be stretched to fall under Section 120-B of IPC and that the main accused is co-accused V.S. Rathore, at whose residential premises, the recovery has been made. In the present case, no memo was prepared by the C.B.I., nor was there any prior information recorded by the C.B.I. pertaining to the raid at the house of co-accused V.S. Rathore. The C.B.I. has not recorded any information in writing which would demonstrate that the raiding team had any prior information with respect to the alleged bribe demanded by co-accused V.S. Rathore. The applicant has not been shown present at the place and time of the purported raid. The accused-applicant's complicity has been shown only on the basis of certain information revealed by co-accused Ranbir Singh during trap proceedings. The only allegation against the applicant, at best, can be confined to introducing co-accused Ranbir Singh to co-accused V.S. Rathore. The first information report does not contain the allegation that the applicant was also receiving an amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs as illegal gratification, as such, an allegation in the trap proceedings to that effect appears to be an afterthought. The applicant was not in a position to influence the investigation in the case at Kasna Police Station. There is no proof of any meeting comprising the applicant and other co-accused. He has never demanded any bribe from co-accused Ranbir Singh and therefore, the offences under the aforementioned sections are not made out on the basis of the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. The telephone conversation shown to have made between the accused are yet to be proved. The mobile numbers shown to have been used by him do not belong to him, rather they belong to different persons. Rs. 18 Lakhs has been shown to have been recovered by the C.B.I. from the house of brother of the applicant, which is neither related to the present case nor is connected with any illegal gratification and the same belongs to his brother. The ultimate authority who might have helped co-accused Ranbir Singh was Nishank Sharma, Dy. S.P., U.P. Police, who was pursuing the criminal case at Kasna Police Station, but he has not been made accused in the present case nor any action has been taken against him. The accused is lying in prison since 29.03.2019. He is not a previous convict and therefore, he should be released on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for C.B.I. vehmently opposed the grant of bail to the accused-applicant and has drawn attention to the relevant portions of the evidence which have come on record against the accused-applicant in the charge-sheet. He has drawn attention towards the Page 81 of the counter affidavit filed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13897 of 2019 (Ranveer Singh v. State of U.P. and Another), which is part of the charge-sheet, in Para No. 16.20 of which it is mentioned that accused-applicant used three mobile SIMs, out of which one belonged to Ms. Amardeep Kaur and other to Ms. Kritika, who have stated that they have handed over the said SIMs to the accused-applicant and did not make use of the same. He has further drawn attention to Para No. 16.28 of the charge-sheet, in which it is mentioned that the forensic science laboratory report regarding analysis of the mobile phones and other electronic gadgets seized during investigation is still awaited and that specimen voice of the accused-applicant along with other co-accused were taken, which is also evident from the list of documents which are annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the said charge-sheet at Serial No. 20, wherein the name of the accused-applicant appears, whose voice sample has been collected. He has also drawn attention towards Page No. 57 onwards of the charge-sheet, wherein, in Para No. 16.2, it is mentioned that investigation has revealed that after registration of the F.I.R., further information was received from the source that co-accused Ranbir Singh would visit the residential premises - Flat No. 1101, Block A-2, Supertech Livingston Society, Crossing Republic, NH-24, Ghaziabad at around 07.00 a.m. on 02.02.2019 in Maruti Swift Dzire Car to deliver bribe amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs to co-accused V.S. Rathore and the accused-applicant, on the basis of which, Shri Suresh Pal, the then I.O. of the case led the independent witnesses, namely, Ashish Kumar and Vinod Kumar and a team to witness the transaction of illegal gratification between co-accused Ranbir Singh, co-accused V.S. Rathore and the present accused, which was to take place at around 07.00 hrs. On 02.02.2019, the C.B.I. team led by Suresh Pal, Inspector, intercepted co-accused V.S. Rathore and co-accused Ranbir Singh around 07.40 hrs. in the house of co-accused V.S. Rathore, where co-accused Ranbir Singh handed over Rs. 20 Lakhs contained in white carry bag, which in turn, was kept in another green carry bag brought by co-accused Ranbir Singh. During trap proceedings, co-accused Ranbir Singh disclosed that Crime No. 421 of 2018 had been registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of Act, 1988 on 30.06.2018 at Police Station - Kasna, District - Gautam Budh Nagar against the officials of YEWA and Greater Noida and others and that his two brothers-in-law, namely, Gaurav Kumar and Manoj Kumar and nephew Anil Kumar were accused in that case, who had been arrested by Kasna Police and that he had also disclosed that police was suspecting his role also and he had taken protection against arrest from the Allahabad High Court. He had further disclosed during trap proceedings that he was acquainted with the present accused-applicant then and had approached him in August, 2018 to get some favour in the aforesaid case of Kasna Police Station. Thereafter, in the month of December, 2018, the accused-applicant brought him to co-accused V.S. Rathore at his house. During interaction, co-accused V.S. Rathore told him that he was well-acquainted with Nishank Sharma, Dy. S.P. and the Investigating Officer of the said case at Police Station - Kasna and assured that he would speak to him for favourable decision, but had demanded for the same a sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs as bribe from co-accused Ranbir Singh as initial installment of bribe. During trap proceedings on 02.02.2019, Mintu Ansari, driver in Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire Car, which was brought by co-accused Ranbir Singh to the house of co-accused V.S. Rathore was engaged. Further attention is drawn towards the Para 16.16 of the charge-sheet, in which it is mentioned that during investigation, Raj Kumar alias Raju and nephew of Ranveer had stated that on 31.01.2019, the Noida Police had filed an application for police remand of his brothers Anil Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Gaurav Kumar, which was granted for two days, which disturbed Raj Kumar and his father as they apprehended that Noida Police could make search of their house. Thereafter, Raj Kumar spoke to his uncle co-accused Ranbir Singh on Whatsapp to save his brother from torture by Noida Police. It was also said by him that his uncle was already trying his level best to save all the three from the police torture and during his conversation with co-accused Ranbir Singh, he told him that he knew that the accused-applicant and co-accused V.S. Rathore had good link with Noida Police and further he stated that during this period, his uncle co-accused Ranbir Singh had given him an amount of Rs. 12 Lakhs in cash for keeping the same with him in safe custody and that he would take back the said amount as and when required by him. On 31.01.2018, co-accused Ranbir Singh contacted him over Whatsapp in the evening and asked him to come over to Gaur Chowk, Noida along with an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs (out of Rs. 12 Lakhs given by him) at the earliest. Accordingly, he proceeded for the said place, but his uncle was already waiting at Gaur Chowk in taxi. His uncle told him to follow his taxi towards Ghaziabad and then the said taxi stopped outside the residential society namely, Supertech Livingston Society and thereafter, his uncle, co-accused Ranbir Singh, got out from some other taxi and Raj Kumar also got out of the taxi, as indicated by his uncle and they approached a white Ford Ecosport Car outside the said society. As instructed, they got into the said car and found a person on the driver's seat to whom his uncle introduced and he was accused-applicant Sunil Dutt working as Inspector in C.B.I. Thereafter, the accused-applicant drove his Ford Ecosport inside Supertech Livingston Society, Ghaziabad. Thereafter, the said accused went to the residence of co-accused V.S. Rathore at Flat No. 1101, where accused Sunil Dutt introduced Raj Kumar to co-accused V.S. Rathore. The accused-applicant Sunil Dutt informed Raj Kumar about the amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs brought by his uncle for getting relief for his brother Anil Kumar as well as Manoj Kumar and Gaurav Kumar in Noida Police case. Attention is also drawn towards Para No. 16.17 of the charge-sheet, in which it is mentioned that for showing nil recovery by U.P. Police from accused Manoj Kumar, Gaurav Kumar and Anil Kumar in Kasna case, the accused-applicant had demanded Rs. 25 Lakhs, which is proved from the conversation which is mentioned in the charge-sheet. The said charge-sheet contains the telephone conversation in code words with respect to handing over of money, etc. Having drawn attention to all these pieces of evidence, it is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the C.B.I that there is strong evidence against the accused-applicant being involved in the present occurrence as accused-applicant is privy to this illegal act of demand being made of Rs. 20 Lakhs and above in respect of securing favourable order from the I.O. of the police case at Kasna for relative of co-accused Ranbir Singh.
7. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the applicant on the judgment passed by Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2637 of 2019 (Vinit Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others) dated 22.10.2019. Attention has been drawn towards Para Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the said judgment and it is argued that tapping of phone in order to prove the conversation is not permissible under law, as such interception is permissible only when there is occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety. In the present case, neither of the requirements is met, hence, any prosecution case based on telephonic conversation would have no evidenciary value and in view of that, there is no evidence on record against the accused-applicant, to which learned counsel for C.B.I. vehemently argued that permission was taken from the Government for recording the conversation of the accused.
8. Attention is also drawn towards the conduct of the accused-applicant that C.B.I. team had gone to the residence of the accused-applicant and at his instance, his family members had assaulted them and the accused had fled from his house, regarding which, an F.I.R. was lodged, under Sections 307, 342, 353, 435, 395, 509, 354, 34, 225 and 216 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(d) of S.C./S.T., to which it was responded by learned counsel for the applicant that he has got himself bail out in that case.
9. After having heard both the sides and having perused the evidence brought on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in showing sufficient amount of prove of the accused-applicant being involved in the present case and this case is of enormous gravity because an amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs is found to have been recovered from co-accused V.S. Rathore, who is Inspector in C.B.I. and who is stated to have been given bribe of Rs. 20 Lakhs as initial installment by co-accused Ranbir Singh and thus, role of accused-applicant is also found to be there, which is shown from the side of the prosecution by pointing out the evidence above.
10. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, looking to the gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case for granting bail to the accused-applicant and the same deserves to be rejected.
11. Ordered accordingly.
12. However, the trial court is directed to conclude trial of the case expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one year.
Order Date :- October 30, 2019 I. Batabyal [Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.]