Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

APPLICANT SATISFIES THE TRIPLE TEST

12. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant satisfies all conditions governing grant of bail:

• He is not a flight risk;
• He has cooperated throughout investigation; • Documentary evidence is already in custody of the prosecution; • There is no possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
It is submitted that once investigation is complete and evidence is documentary in nature, apprehension of interference becomes illusory. Reliance is placed on P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, wherein the Apex Court held that gravity of offence alone cannot justify denial of bail if the accused satisfies the triple test.
PARITY WITH CO-ACCUSED FAVOURS THE APPLICANT

13. It is submitted that several co-accused persons, including those alleged to have played far more significant roles in the alleged scam, have already been granted bail either by this Court or by the Apex Court. Even officers of the Excise Department and key functionaries connected with procurement and execution have been enlarged on bail. Many persons allegedly involved in core operational aspects of the alleged scam have not even been arrested. It is therefore contended that denial of bail to the applicant would violate the principle of parity, a recognized ground in bail jurisprudence.

24. It is further argued that the applicant was never posted in the Excise Department and never exercised statutory authority relating to liquor procurement or licensing. No document shows his direct involvement in decision-making connected to excise policy execution. Thus, according to the counsel for the applicant, the attempt to portray the applicant as controlling excise affairs is factually incorrect. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ALREADY SECURED-NO POSSIBILITY OF TAMPERING

25. It is contended that the entire case rests upon documentary evidence already seized and placed before the Court. Statements of the witnesses stand recorded. Hence apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses is wholly illusory. Reliance is placed upon P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791, holding that gravity of offence alone cannot justify denial of bail if the accused satisfies the triple test.

82. The prosecution edifice rests preponderantly on documentary evidence, forged records, transactional ledgers, and pecuniary trails, long since secured, seized, and sealed post applicant's arrest. Such material, immutable in character and insulated from post-custody interference, dissipates any genuine apprehension of tampering. The theoretical possibility pales against Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 mandate: bail denial cannot stem from imagined risks where evidence integrity remains unassailable. Minimal tampering latitude reinforces liberty presumption under Article 21. VIII. Cumulative Assessment