Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Respondents/CBI per-contra, by filing the objections have opposed the bail on the grounds, that case FIR No. RC0042023A0003 dated 08.02.2023 has been registered by the CBI, Jammu u/s120-B of IPC r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 on the basis of complaint dated 07.02.2023 lodged by one Pankaj Kumar Verma S/o Sh. Sarvan Kumar R/o Lotus Villa, 232 Sector-1, Jalpura Greater Noida UP, alleging demand of bribe of Rs. 2.30 lacs by accused Sajad Ahmed Chief Accounts Officer JKTDC through Shokat Ali for processing of payment in respect of bills submitted by the complainant, that a trap was laid and both the accused persons namely, Sajjad Ahmed Chief Accounts Officer JKTDC and Shokat Ali Lecturer Govt. Polytechnic College Jammu were caught red-handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.2.30 lacs from the complainant in presence of independent witnesses and were subsequently arrested on 08.02.2023 and taken into custody after following all the legal procedure. It is contended, that considering the gravity of the offence, the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption (CBI Cases) Jammu has rejected the bail application of the accused vide order dated 23.02.2023 and there is every likelihood that if the accused is released on bail at this stage, he may tamper with prosecution evidence and influence the witnesses as he being a Chief Accounts Officer in JKTDC Jammu and is a highly influential, the accused has not carved out exceptional or special circumstances for his enlargement on bail, the bail application is not maintainable, as such deserves to be out rightly rejected and dismissed.

3. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, Ld. Counsel while advancing the case of petitioner/accused for grant of bail, has strenuously articulated arguments, that as per the allegations against petitioner/accused, on 08.02.2023 the CBI laid a trap and petitioner/accused alongwith co-accused were caught red- handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 2.30 lacs from the complainant and both were arrested on 08.02.2023 and thereafter petitioner/accused alongwith co-accused are lying in judicial custody in District Jail Ambphala Jammu for the last more than 1 ½ months and are not required for any further investigation. It is argued, that petitioner/accused has neither accepted any bribe money nor the same has been recovered from him during the alleged trap, petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence, on the contrary, the complainant is trying to arm twist the petitioner with the connivance of certain CBI officers to settle some personal scores which shall be revealed at the stage of cross-examination and defense in the trial, however, by keeping the petitioner under detention for indefinite period will amount to inflicting of pre-trial punishment to him which is against the mandate of criminal jurisprudence which postulates that the presumption of innocence always lies in favour of accused who is presumed to be innocent till guilt is proved against him. It is moreso argued, that no special provisions for bail are provided in the Prevention of Corruption Act and the bail application of petitioner/accused is to be governed under the provisions of Section 437 Cr.PC, "bail is rule" and "jail is exception", petitioner/accused is having his wife, children and old age parents and he being the only male caretaker of his family, as such, humane approach needs to be applied in consideration of his bail. It is further argued, that the personal liberty as enshrined in the Constitution of India is of paramount importance which should not be deprived, petitioner/accused cannot be kept in detention for an indefinite period only upon the mere apprehension that he will tamper with the prosecution evidence which cannot be expected, in bail application the general principle is that the object of bail is to secure appearance of the accused person at the trial by reasonable amount of bail and deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, the court owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every accused is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions, (i) P Chidambaram versus Central Bureau of Investigation [Criminal Appeal No. 1603 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 2969 of 2019, decided by Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 22 October 2019], (ii) 2014 Legal Eagle 488 [Arnesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar], (iii) ANUJ GUPTA--Petitioner Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION--Respondent [Bail Application No. 279/2022, decided by Delhi High Court on 23.02.2022], & (iv) Umesh Kumar vs Incharge Police Station CBI and anr. [Bail App No. 174/2020 CrlM No. 1015/2020, decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.10.2020].

4. Ms. Monika Kohli Ld. Sr. AAG for respondent-CBI, per-contra, has sought the rejection of the bail of petitioner/accused by vociferously projecting arguments, that on 08.02.2023 a trap was laid and both the accused persons namely, Sajjad Ahmed Chief Accounts Officer JKTDC and Shokat Ali Lecturer Govt. Polytechnic College Jammu were caught red-handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.2.30 lacs from the complainant in presence of independent witnesses, whereafter, petitioner alongwith co- accused were arrested on 08.02.2023 and taken into custody, the investigation of the case is at very initial stage and the petitioner/accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right as he is indicted in non-bailable offence, there is every likelihood that if petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail at this stage he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and influence the witnesses, thereby, causing irreparable harm to the fair investigation of the case. It is argued, that petitioner/accused being a Govt. Servant has abused his official position and has committed heinous crime under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, petitioner/accused is highly influential and his criminal act is against the societal interest, 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 etc. and larger interests of the public/State, the words „reasonable grounds for believing‟ used by the Legislature for the purpose of granting bail means, that the Court while dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused, due to involvement of government officials in accepting the illegal gratification/bribe the confidence of common person has been shaken, investigating agency must be given sufficient time to complete the investigation. Prayer has been made for rejection of bail. In support of her arguments, learned Sr. AAG has relied upon the decisions reported in, (i) (2013) 7 Scale 15 (Central Bureau of Investigation vs V. Vijay Sai Reddy), (ii) 2017(2) RCR (Criminal) 232 (Avneesh Kumar Gupta v CBI) & (iii) [Darbara Singh v/s Union Territory of JK, judgment/order of J&K High Court rendered in Bail App No. 39/2021].

It is profitable to reiterate here, that case FIR No. RC0042023A0003 dated 08.02.2023 has been registered by the CBI, Jammu u/s 120-B of IPC r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 against the petitioner on the basis of complaint dated 07.02.2023 lodged by one Pankaj Kumar Verma S/o Sh. Sarvan Kumar R/o Lotus Villa, 232 Sector-1 Jalpura Greater Noida UP alleging demand of bribe of Rs.2.30 lacs by accused Sajad Ahmed Chief Accounts Officer JKTDC through Shokat Ali for processing of payment in respect of bills submitted by the complainant, on receipt of the complaint the verification thereof was carried out by Sh. Sanjay Kumar PSI wherein demand of bribe by the accused Sajjad Ahmed from the complainant through Shokat was confirmed, pursuant to which a trap was laid and both the accused persons namely, Sajjad Ahmed Chief Accounts Officer JKTDC and Shokat Ali Lecturer Govt. Polytechnic College Jammu were caught red-handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.2.30 lacs from the complainant in presence of independent witnesses and both the accused were arrested and taken into custody on 08.02.2023 after following all the legal procedure.