Uttarakhand High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 28 February, 2025
I N TH E H I GH COURT OF UTTARAKH AN D
AT N AI N I TAL
Bail Application 1st No. 1549 of 2024
Sandeep Kumar ......Applicant
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), S.P.E.- Dehradun
.....Respondent
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the CBI.
H on 'ble Ash ish N a it ha n i, J ( Or a l) The applicant has filed t he present bail applicat ion, Sandeep Kum ar, an Assist ant Engineer in t he Cent ral Public Works Depart m ent ( CPWD) , Dehradun, in connect ion wit h Case Crim e No. RC0072024A0004, regist ered under Sect ion 7 of t he Prevent ion of Corrupt ion Act , 1988 ( as am ended in 2018) at CBI , ACB, Dehradun. The case was regist ered based on a writ t en com plaint dat ed 15.04.2024 by Deepak Kum ar Sharm a, a governm ent cont ract or, alleging t hat t he applicant had demanded a bribe of ₹5,50,000 for allowing him to cont inue const ruct ion work at a Governm ent Resident ial Colony at I TBP, Seem adwar, Dehradun, wit hout obst ruct ion. The com plainant also subm it t ed a t elephonic conversat ion dat ed 12.04.2024, which purport edly cont ains t he dem and for a bribe.
2. Act ing upon t his com plaint , t he CBI laid a t rap on 16.04.2024, during which t he applicant was allegedly caught red- handed while accepting ₹1,00,000 as part of t he dem anded bribe from t he com plainant 's account ant , Bhopal Singh Chauhan. Following his arrest on 16.04.2024, t he applicant was produced before t he court and has rem ained in j udicial cust ody since 17.04.2024.
1The CBI filed a charge sheet on 13.06.2024, and t he Special CBI Court , Dehradun, t ook cognisance on 06.07.2024.
3. The applicant had previously filed t wo bail applicat ions before t he Special CBI Court , Dehradun, which were rej ect ed on 26.06.2024 ( default bail under Sect ion 167( 2) Cr.P.C.) and 11.07.2024 ( on m erit s) . The court found t hat t he charge sheet was filed wit hin t he t im e and t hat t he seriousness of t he offence, coupled wit h t he risk of wit ness t am pering, did not warrant bail.
4. I n t he present applicat ion before t he Hon'ble High Court , t he applicant has now added t he ground of prolonged incarcerat ion, cont ending t hat he has rem ained in j udicial cust ody since 17.04.2024. Given t he pendency of cases, t he t rial is likely to t ake a considerable t im e t o conclude. I t has been argued t hat furt her det ent ion would serve no purpose, as t he invest igat ion has already been com plet ed, and t he charge sheet has been filed.
5. The applicant assert s t hat he has been falsely im plicat ed due t o personal enm it y wit h t he com plainant , who allegedly fabricat ed t he case aft er t he applicant obj ect ed to sub- st andard work being done at t he const ruct ion sit e. I t has been subm it t ed t hat t he audio recording of t he conversat ion dat ed 12.04.2024, relied upon by t he CBI , is only a part ial t ranscript , and t he com plainant has not provided t he full conversat ion, which m ay provide t he necessary cont ext t o exonerat e t he applicant .
6. The applicant has also challenged t he credibilit y of t he CBI 's t rap proceedings, alleging t hat t he bribe m oney was forcibly placed in his hands and t hat he was coerced int o t he sit uat ion. I t is cont ended t hat his fingerprint s were not found on t he recovered bribe m oney, and t here were no independent wit nesses t o t he alleged accept ance of t he bribe. Furt herm ore, it has been argued t hat t he forensic report of his voice sam ple has not yet been subm it t ed, which weakens t he case against him .
7. Anot her ground raised by t he applicant is t he seizure of ₹20,49,500 from his residence, which he cont ends was lawfully acquired from t he sale of his land on 09.04.2024 and has no connect ion wit h t he present bribery case. The applicant subm it s t hat he is a law - abiding cit izen wit h no past crim inal record, is not a flight risk, and is willing t o abide by any condit ions im posed by t he court .
8. The CBI has vehem ent ly opposed t he bail applicat ion, arguing t hat t he applicant was caught red- handed accept ing t he bribe. A recorded t elephone conversat ion dat ed 12.04.2024 corroborat ed t his demand. The CBI has also recovered ₹20,49,500 in cash from t he applicant 's residence, for which he has failed t o provide a sat isfact ory explanat ion. As a result , t he CBI regist ered a Disproport ionat e Asset s ( DA) case ( RC0072024A0005) on 25.05.2024, which is st ill under invest igat ion.
9. The CBI cont ends t hat t he applicant 's release on bail would j eopardise t he t rial proceedings, as t he com plainant is yet t o be exam ined in court , and t here is a st rong likelihood t hat t he applicant m ay influence or int im idat e wit nesses. The CBI argues t hat corrupt ion cases require st rict j udicial scrut iny, and grant ing bail at t his st age could set a wrong precedent and erode public t rust in t he j ust ice syst em .
10. The CBI has also opposed t he argum ent of prolonged incarcerat ion, cont ending t hat delay in t rial is not a valid ground for bail in corrupt ion cases. The CBI assert s t hat t he nat ure and gravit y of t he allegat ions against t he applicant , coupled wit h t he fact t hat t he t rial is at a crucial st age, m ake him ineligible for bail. The CBI has furt her point ed out t hat t he applicant 's financial records indicat e unexplained asset s, which are current ly under invest igat ion in t he Disproport ionat e Asset s ( DA) case, and releasing him at t his st age m ay ham per ongoing inquiries.
11. Given t he seriousness of t he allegat ions, t he pot ent ial risk of wit ness t am pering, t he ongoing financial invest igat ion, and t he fact t hat t wo bail applicat ions have already been rej ect ed, t he CBI has urged t he Hon'ble Court t o dism iss t he present bail applicat ion.
The court has carefully considered t he argum ent s advanced by bot h part ies and exam ined t he case on record.
12. At t he out set , it is set t led law t hat m ere lengt h of incarcerat ion cannot be a st andalone ground for bail in cases involving econom ic offences, corrupt ion, or bribery by public officials. The Hon'ble Suprem e Court in Y.S. Ja ga n M oha n Re ddy v. CBI , ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 SCC 4 3 9 has held t hat " econom ic offences const it ut e a separat e cat egory of crim es, as t hey involve deep- root ed conspiracies, m isuse of public office, and significant financial im plicat ions for societ y." The court , in t hat case,em phasised t hat corrupt ion and financial fraud underm ine t he rule of law and public t rust in governance, necessit at ing a st rict er approach in grant ing bail.
13. In t he present case, t he applicant , while serving as an Assist ant Engineer in CPWD, is alleged t o have dem anded and accept ed a bribe t o allow cont inued const ruct ion work, which direct ly affect s public adm inist rat ion and governm ent cont ract s. Therefore, t he gravit y of t he allegat ions cannot be ignored when considering t he quest ion of bail.
14. The applicant has sought t o argue t hat t he delay in t rial should weigh in Favor of his release. However, t he Hon'ble Suprem e Court in N im m a ga dda Pr a sa d v. CBI ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 SCC 4 6 6 has held t hat m ere delay in a t rial does not ent it le an accused t o bail in econom ic offences, part icularly when serious allegat ions of corrupt ion and bribery are involved. The court m ust balance personal libert y wit h t he m ore significant public int erest . The sam e principle was reit erat ed in CBI v. Vij a y Sa i Re ddy ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 SCC 4 5 2 , where t he Suprem e Court observed t hat in cases where prim a facie m at erial exist s against t he accused, cont inued det ent ion is j ust ified even in cases of prolonged cust ody.
15. In t he present case, t he t rial has not com m enced due t o procedural reasons and not due t o any deliberat e delay by t he st at e. Furt herm ore, t he com plainant is yet t o be exam ined, and releasing t he applicant at t his st age could pose a serious risk of wit ness t am pering and t rial int erference.
16. Anot her crucial fact or against t he applicant is t he ongoing Disproport ionat e Asset s ( DA) invest igat ion. The CBI has subm it t ed t hat a search conduct ed at t he applicant's residence led to the seizure of ₹20,49,500 in cash, for which t he applicant failed to provide a sat isfact ory explanat ion. This led t o t he regist rat ion of a separat e DA case ( RC0072024A0005) on 25.05.2024, which rem ains under invest igat ion.
17. The Hon'ble Suprem e Court in P. Chidam baram v. Direct orat e of Enforcem ent ( 2019) 9 SCC 24 has held t hat in cases involving m ult iple layers of allegat ions of corrupt ion and illegal m onet ary gains, t he court m ust exercise caut ion while considering bail, ensuring t hat t he int egrit y of t he invest igat ion is not com prom ised. I n t he present case, t he pendency of a separat e financial invest igat ion furt her st rengt hens t he CBI 's cont ent ion t hat t he applicant should not be released at t his st age.
18. The applicant has sought to rely on t he principle t hat bail should not be denied m erely due t o prolonged cust ody. However, in sim ilar cases of financial offences, court s have consist ent ly refused bail even aft er ext ended incarcerat ion.
19. I n Sa nj a y Cha ndr a v. CBI ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 SCC 4 0 , t he Suprem e Court denied bail t o t he accused in t he 2G Spect rum Scam , despit e t heir long period of incarcerat ion, holding t hat econom ic offences involving public m oney m ust be t reat ed different ly from ordinary crim es.
20. A sim ilar view was t aken in M a noj Ja ya sw a l v. CBI ( 2021) SCC OnLine SC 1 2 3 2 , where t he Suprem e Court held t hat econom ic offences st rike at t he foundat ion of financial governance, and court s m ust exercise ext rem e caut ion in grant ing bail in such m at t ers.
The fact s of t he present case reveal t hat t he allegat ions against t he applicant are severe, t he evidence on record support s t he charges, and t he possibilit y of int erference in t he t rial rem ains high. The claim of prolonged incarcerat ion cannot override t he considerat ions of public int erest , t he nat ure of t he offence, and t he risk t o t he t rial process.
21. Accordingly, t his court finds no valid ground t o grant bail, and t he present bail applicat ion st ands rej ect ed.
( Ashish N a it ha ni, J.) 28.02.2025