High Court of Delhi was dealing with the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR registered under Sections 7/8/9/10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B IPC.
Brief Facts:
The applicant, who is a qualified Chartered Accountant (CA), was arrested on 31.12.2021, whereafter he was remanded to police custody till 08.01.2022, and he is in judicial custody. As per the prosecution case, the applicant’s phone was on surveillance, however no transcript of any conversation has been placed on record to back-up the allegation that the applicant was aware of the facts or involved in any other illegal activity. Rather, there is no record of any call between the applicant and the accused/Akil Ahmad, except one call which was made by the applicant at the instance of the CBI officials and another call which was received by the applicant from Akil Ahmad during the trap proceedings, after recovery of the bribe money, which is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. On 30.12.2021, when accused/Sunil Kumar Verma met the applicant to hand over the bag containing Rs.20 lacs for the accused/Akil Ahmad, the applicant had no knowledge of the nature of the transaction and/or the fact that the bag he was receiving contained payment towards bribe to Akil Ahmad.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the applicant is on a better footing than that of co-accused persons, and on the same footing as that of accused/Sunil Kumar Verma, who have already been released on regular bail. It was further submitted that in the transaction in question, there was no opportunity for the applicant to react or to act in accordance with his profession.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that only the co-accused persons who were involved in the process of giving of bribe have been released on bail, however, the applicant and the accused/Akil Ahmad, for whom the applicant accepted the bribe, have been denied the relief. It was submitted that the case at hand involves a larger conspiracy, as the accused/Akil Ahmad was in the habit of demanding bribe and the applicant was his CA. It was also submitted that the alleged offence being serious in nature and considering the professional capabilities of the applicant, his release is likely to impact further investigation, as he may tamper with the evidence.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court noted relevant factors to be taken into account while considering a bail application which have been reiterated by the Supreme Court recently in Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another.
HC relied the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation where it has been noted by the Supreme Court that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in matters of bail.
Court observed that on a specific query from the learned SPP for CBI as to whether there exists any call or transcript of any conversation between the applicant and the accused/Akil Ahmad, apart from the calls exchanged during the trap proceedings, the answer was given in the negative. Concededly, even in the recovered WhatsApp messages, no mention of any bribe or bribe amount was found.
Court found that it has been alleged in the FIR that accused/Akil Ahmad was in the habit of asking for illegal gratification, however learned SPP, on instructions, informed that apart from the present case, no other case has been registered against him or the present applicant. Court stated that different amounts have been recovered from the accused persons. An intimation regarding the same is stated to have been given to the Income tax authorities. The co-accused persons, have also been granted bail.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “The present applicant, a Chartered Accountant, is stated to be a resident of Delhi, having deep roots in society. Besides, the applicant is ready and willing to surrender his Passport. The same, in the opinion of this Court, along with appropriate conditions, can secure the applicant’s presence during the trial and allay any apprehension regarding him being a flight risk. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to release the present applicant on bail during the pendency of the trial.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Case Title: Anuj Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Details: BAIL APPLN. 279/2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
