Delhi High Court
Sh. G Purshottam vs Cbi on 12 October, 2017
$~45 & 46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1176/2017
SH. G PURSHOTTAM ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Munnipalle Sowri Dev, Advocate.
Versus
CBI ....Respondent
Through: Ms Rajdipa, SPP for CBI with Ms. Kriti
Handa, Mr. Philomon Kani, Mr. Vignaraj
Pasayat and Ms. Karnika Singh,
Advocates.
+ BAIL APPLN. 1245/2017
S SUBASH ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
CBI ....Respondent
Through: Ms Rajdipa, SPP for CBI with Ms. Kriti
Handa, Mr. Philomon Kani, Mr. Vignaraj
Pasayat and Ms. Karnika Singh,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
% ORDER
12.10.2017
1. By this present petition filed under Section 438 Criminal Procedure
Code (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C) the petitioners seeks
Anticipatory Bail in RC No. 05 (A)/2017/CBI/AC-III/New Delhi
under Section 120-B IPC, Section 7,8,12,13(2) read with 13(1)(d)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein referred as PC, Act)
registered at New Delhi, Police Station- AC- III against Lt. Col R.S
Moni & Others by CBI Anti-Corruption-III, New Delhi.
BAIL APPLN. 1245/2017 and 1176/2017 Page 1 of 4
2. The brief and necessary facts of the case are that the case in hand is
a case of bribery to secure favourable posting. The petitioners are
Central Government employees and are employed with Military
Engineering Service (MES) under the Ministry of Defence. The
petitioners entered into a criminal conspiracy to procure favourable
transfer/posting on payment of illegal gratification. In furtherance
of said criminal conspiracy, the petitioner Subash, who is a Barrack
Store Officer, paid a sum of Rs. 5 lacs with the help of Purshottam
through hawala transaction to Gaurav Kohli out of which 2 lacs
was transferred to Lt Col. R.S. Moni for obtaining favourable
posting order for Subash BSO.
3. Contention advanced by Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for
the petitioner Subash is that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in alleged case of bribery to secure favourable posting;
that the petitioner received his posting order to Porbander (Gujarat)
in the month of April/May; that the petitioner submitted an
application through proper channel for change of his posting on
children's education ground; that the CBI officials conducted a
search in his residence as well as in the office of the applicant but
no cash or any other incriminating material was seized by the CBI
officials during the search; that the petitioner fully co-operated
with the CBI officials during the search and investigation.
4. Mr. Munnipalle Sowri Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner G.
Purushottam contended that the CBI has raided the premises of the
petitioner and amount of 3lacs was seized; that all the property
documents recovered in searches/raids relate to the year 2006 and
BAIL APPLN. 1245/2017 and 1176/2017 Page 2 of 4
that the petitioner is ready to account for each and every single
penny recovered from the premises; that the CBI has not arrested
the petitioner so far as his custodial interrogation was not
necessary. He further contended that the FIR does not disclose any
motive or reward with respect to the role of the petitioner; that his
previous application for anticipatory bail u/s 438 was dismissed by
the District and Sessions Judge Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
5. Per contra, the learned SPP for CBI contended that the
investigation was commenced on the basis of an information
received; that the information was fortified by the surveillance of
the phones of the accused persons which clearly prove that the
petitioner Subash handed over the bribe money to the petitioner G.
Purushottam thus it is for this reason that custodial investigation
assumes importance.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also
perused the material on record.
7. It has been revealed during the investigation that the petitioners
were actively involved in the commission of the offence and the
same could be revealed from the telephonic interceptions which
show that the petitioners were in regular touch with other co-
accused for obtaining a favourable posting order for the petitioner
Subash. The petitioner Purushottam facilitated the delivery of
illegal gratification from the petitioner Subash to the other co-
accused. Moreover, it has been revealed from the investigation that
a sum of 3lacs, part amount of the bribe money, has been seized
from the custody of the petitioner G. Purushottam.
BAIL APPLN. 1245/2017 and 1176/2017 Page 3 of 4
8. In my opinion, merely because the petitioners are government
servants/officials they do not enjoy any immunity from arrest if
they have committed an offence.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the facts and
circumstances and the nature and gravity of the alleged offence,
this Court is not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in this case. Hence the petition stands dismissed.
10. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that nothing
observed herein shall have any bearing upon the merits of the case
during trial.
11. Accordingly the petition is disposed of.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
OCTOBER 12, 2017 gr// BAIL APPLN. 1245/2017 and 1176/2017 Page 4 of 4