Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 May, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17947 of 2023
Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation
Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Gopal Misra, Advocate along with Ms. Smita Dixit, the learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Gyan Prakash, Senior Advocate, the Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party 1 i.e. C.B.I.
Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Perused the record.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant Sanjay Kumar seeking his enlargement on bail in F.I.R. dated 8.10.2022 registered as R.C. No. 1202022A0016 under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station C.B.I. (ACB), District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.
Record shows that a complaint was made by the complainant on 7.10.2022. Subsequent to above an F.I.R. as noted above came to be registered on 8.10.2022. Pursuant to aforesaid F.I.R., a trap was laid on 10.10.2022. However the trap failed.
After aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with the statutory investigation of concerned Case Crime Number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer prima facie came to the conclusion that an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet dated 6.12.2022, whereby and whereunder applicant has been charge sheeted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Learned counsel for applicant has taken the Court to the various documents appended along with the bail application. On the basis of above, he contends that applicant is simply working as a Class IV employee on the post of Sanitary Supervisor. Referring to the averments made in paragraph 32 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, he contends that applicant does not possess any power of appointment on any post in the Cantonment Board. In the light of aforesaid legal submission, he contends that the alleged demand alleged to have been raised by the applicant has been engineered only to falsely implicate the present applicant. On the aforesaid premise he contends that the acid test which is required to be satisfied for invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as explained by the Constitution Bench Judgment in Neeraj Dutta vs State (Govt.Of N.C.T.Of Delhi) (2022) SCC ON LINE SC 1724 is not satisfied against applicant up to this stage. He, therefore, submits that no offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against applicant. Even otherwise applicant is a man of clean antecedents. He has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 10.10.2022. As such applicant has undergone almost seven months of incarceration. The charge sheet having been submitted, therefore, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant now stands crystalized. There is no such critical circumstance on record on the basis of which it can be said that custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the course of trial. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the order dated 27.4.2023 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 3561 of 2023 reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 373. On the cumulative strength of above, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.
Per contra, Mr. Gyan Prakash, the Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Sanjay Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party 1 i.e. C.B.I. has vehemently opposted the present application for bail. He contends that money was actually accepted by the applicant but thereafter he threw the same and fled away as he fled away from the place of occurrence. However, he was subsequently arrested on the same date. The ingredients of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are clearly made out against applicant. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence during the trial and pressurize the prosecution witness. On the above premise, he contends that no case of bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is liable to be rejected.
Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Gyan Prakash, the Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Sanjay Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party 1 i.e. C.B.I. and upon perusal of record, evidence, allegations made, complicity of accused coupled with the fact that the trap laid by the Police failed, the applicant being a simply Class IV employee working on the post of Sanitary Supervisor, the averments made in paragraph 32 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that applicant does not possess any power of appointment on any post in the Cantonment Board, the said averments made in paragraph 32 of the affidavit having not been specifically replied in paragraph 25 of the counter affidavit, applicant is in jail since 10.10.2022, as such he has undergone almost seven months of incarceration, prima facie the ingredients of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as explained by Constitution Bench noted above being not satisfied, the charge sheet having been submitted, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution now stands crystalized, there is no such critical circumstance necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the course of trial, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
The bail application is accordingly allowed.
Let the applicant Sanjay Kumar involved in F.I.R. dated 8.10.2022 and registered as R.C. No. 1202022A0016 under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station C.B.I. (ACB), District Ghaziabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 5.5.2023
Aiman
