Delhi High Court
Manohar Malik vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 26 March, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 03.03.2021
% Pronounced on : 26.03.2021
+ BAIL APPLN. 437/2021
MANOHAR MALIK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Nikhil Goel, SPP for CBI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. By way of this order, I shall dispose of the present petition filed
by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in case FIR
No. 2172021A0001 of CBI, ACU-IV, under Section 120 B IPC read
with Section 7/7A/8/12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment)
Act, 2018.
2. Briefly stated, the allegations in the FIR are that R.K. Sangwan,
DSP, R.K. Rishi, DSP, Kapil Dhanked, Inspector and Sameer Kumar
Singh, Steno in conspiracy with private persons Arvind Kumar Gupta
and Manohar Malik (present petitioner) and certain other accused have
been compromising the integrity of investigation of certain cases on
extraneous pecuniary considerations.
3. Further, the allegations as per the FIR are that in the case of M/s
Shree Shyam Pulp & Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. (M/s SSPBML), R.K.
Sangwan, DSP the previous investigating officer of this case, offered
and paid a bribe of Rs. 10 Lakhs in cash on behalf of Ms. Mandeep
Kaur Dhillon, Addl. Director of the said company to Kapil Dhankad,
Inspector. On his part, Kapil Dhankad conveyed confidential
information relating to the investigation of this case to R.K. Sangwan,
DSP with an intention to favour the accused.
4. It is further alleged that Rs. 10 Lakh was paid as bribe by R. K.
Rishi, DSP on behalf of Sujay Desai and Uday Desai, directors of M/s
Frost international Pvt. Ltd. to Shri Kapil Dhankad, Inspector who was
seized of this issue, for extending favour to the said company.
5. It is further alleged that R.K. Rishi, DSP received Rs. 15 Lakh
twice through two advocates namely Shri Manohar Malik (present
petitioner) and Arvind Gupta (having office in Defence Colony) to
extend favours to a Chandigarh based company against which a
corruption case was being investigated by CBI. In this matter, Kapil
Dhankad twice received Rs. 2.5 lakhs from Arvind Gupta for having
brokered the deal through R.K. Rishi, DSP.
6. It is further alleged that the details of the investigation of many
other cases including confidential notes and directions have been
communicated by Sameer Kumar Singh, Steno, to R.K. Sangwan and
R.K. Rishi on pecuniary considerations to protect the interest of the
accused.
7. The said allegations were made in the FIR on the basis of
information received through a reliable source, on the basis of which a
Regular Case under Section 120 B of IPC r/w Section 7, 7A, 8 and 12
of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 was registered
against Sh. R.K. Sangwan, DSP, CBI, Sh. R.K. Rishi, DSP, CBI, Sh.
Sameer, Steno, CBI , Kapil Dhankad, Inspector CBI, Arvind Kumar
Gupta, Advocate, Manohar Malik, Advocate (present petitioner),
Mandeep Kaur Dhillon, Additional Director, M/s Shree Shyam Pulp
& Board Mills Pvtl Ltd., Sujay Desai and Udai Desai, Directors of
M/s Frost International Pvt. Ltd. and unknown others and entrusted to
Kiran S, S.P., ACII CBI, New Delhi for investigation.
8. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has joined the
investigation. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on
19.01.2021 and remanded to the police custody for a total period of
eight days, and thereafter, on 28.01.2021, the petitioner was sent to
judicial custody. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an
advocate by profession and he has deep roots in the society and there is
no apprehension of his tempering with the evidence or running away
from justice. It is submitted that the petitioner has clean past
antecedents and has his family to support. He further submitted that no
useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial
custody. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the office of the
petitioner was raided and during the raid respondent-CBI had seized
office register and diary, two cancelled cheques, mobile phone, hard
drive of office computer and bunch of papers.
9. Respondent has contested the application by filing its reply.
Learned SPP appearing for CBI has submitted that the petitioner along
with certain other accused has compromised the integrity of the
investigation of certain cases on extraneous pecuniary considerations.
It is further submitted that the petitioner has remained non-cooperative
and evasive during his replies. He further submitted that the
documents recovered showed that petitioner was in possession of
documents of cases which were investigated by co-accused Dhankad
and in those cases applicant/accused was not even a counsel and he
acted as a commute between CBI officials and private persons. He
further submitted that the petitioner is an influential person and an
advocate and he would temper with the evidence and can influence
witnesses.
10. In the instant case, petitioner is in judicial custody since
19.01.2020. He was remanded in police custody for eight days.
Respondent-CBI has conducted search of the office of the petitioner
and seized all the material, which according to the respondent, was
incriminating. Now, all the incriminating material and documents have
been seized during the course of investigation, so there is no possibility
of tempering with the evidence and even the incriminating documents
have already been sent to the CFSL. Therefore, under the
circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail on the following
conditions:-
(i) The Petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial court/MM;
(ii) The petitioner shall provide his mobile phone number to the
Investigating Officer (IO) concerned - at the time of release, which
shall be kept in working condition at all times. The petitioner shall not
switch-off, or change the same without prior intimation to the IO
concerned, during the period of bail;
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without the prior
permission of the concerned trial court;
(iv) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity during
the bail period;
(v) The petitioner shall not communicate with, or come into contact
with any of the prosecution witnesses, or any member of the victim's
family, or tamper with the evidence of the case; and
11. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
12. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of
any opinion on the merits of the case.
MARCH 26 , 2021 RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
