Delhi High Court
Gaurav Kaushik vs C.B.I. on 30 May, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1130/2016
Date of Decision: May 30th, 2016
GAURAV KAUSHIK ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Yashvir Sethi, Adv.
versus
C.B.I. ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Rajdipa Behura, SPP for CBI with
Ms.Monica Gupta and Ms.Garima
Singh Yadav, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail
in FIR No.RC/221/2015/E001-CBI/EO-III, New Delhi, under Sections
120B/420/477A IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 66 read with Section 43 of
the Information & Technology Act.
2. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, as
well as learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI were heard at
length.
3. The allegations leveled in the present case are that during the
period 2011 to 2013, representatives of M/s A.K. & Co., M/s Krishan
Kumar Gupta and M/s Star Construction Co. in connivance with
unknown persons and officials of MCD, unauthorisedly accessed the
e-tendering system of MCD and deleted the entries of works pending
worth Rs.10 crores in respect of said three contractors by misusing the
user IDs of officials of MCD without getting proper completion
certificates and enabled themselves in getting new works without
completing existing works. Investigation revealed that 120 pending
works worth of Rs.7,50,42,764/- of the accused persons were deleted
illegally during the period 27.01.2012 to 10.02.2014 by the petitioner
by using a laptop and Reliance Internet Dongle. It was specifically
alleged against the petitioner that he worked in e-tendering system of
MCD on contract basis of M/s Nextenders India Pvt. Ltd.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
has never been involved in any criminal case. The petitioner is having
a wife and a son of two years to maintain. From December 2009 to
April 2015, the petitioner was working with M/s Next Tenders India
Pvt. Ltd., a company which was assigned the responsibility to manage
the E-tendering system of MCD. The petitioner was appointed as
technical support executive of the said company. The petitioner
performed his duties with utmost dedication and sincerity. The e-
tendering system of MCD was protected with passwords which were
managed by the officials of MCD and the petitioner had no access to
the same. The petitioner received a notice from CBI and attended the
CBI office for the purpose of investigation where he was threatened
and tortured and then he was compelled to give in writing as per the
dictates of the IO.
5. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor for CBI has
argued that though the petitioner had joined the investigation, he had
not cooperated in the investigation. There are serious allegations
against the petitioner that he manipulated the computer system of
MCD and removed several entries from the e-tendering system with a
view to facilitate the contractors due to which favour worth crores
were given. It is further argued that the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is required to unearth the whole controversy between the
petitioner and his co-accused persons.
6. Perusal of record reveals that the petitioner filed the application
for the grant of anticipatory bail before the Court below. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 05.04.2016 granted
interim protection to the petitioner to cooperate in the investigation.
The learned ASJ vide order dated 11.04.2016 dismissed the
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. This Court finds that the allegations leveled against the
petitioner are serious in nature to the effect that he removed the entries
made in the e-tendering system of the MCD and facilitated the
contractors without getting completion certificate and enabled them in
getting new work without completing the existing works. In the
considered view of this Court, to ascertain the role of each person
involved, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. It has
been demonstrated on the record that accused was actively involved in
the crime alleged against him. There are so many persons involved in
the present case including private persons and MCD officials and if
the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it may prejudice the
investigation conducted by the CBI.
8. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, this Court does
not find it fit to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. The application is accordingly dismissed.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
MAY 30, 2016
dd
