Gauhati High Court
Pawan Chaudhari @ Pawan Chaudhury vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 13 September, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010200772023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3182/2023
PAWAN CHAUDHARI @ PAWAN CHAUDHURY
S/O GANESH CHAUDHURI,
R/O PARASWA, WARD NO. 12, P.O.- BHELAHI, P.S.- PALANWA, DIST.- EAST
CHAMPARAN, BIHAR, PIN- 845305.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILL.- HATISAR, P.O.- DEOSIRI, P.S.-
RUNIKHATA, DIST.- CHIRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 783375.
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REP. BY THE SC, CBI.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 13.09.2023
Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
M. Haloi, learned Standing Counsel, CBI.
Page No.# 2/4
This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in
connection with RC0172023A0010 (RC 10(A)/2023-GWH), under Section 120B
of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 & 7A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahmud, that
the accused/petitioner is innocent and from the statement of the F.I.R., it
reveals that the customs officials are involved in getting bribe from the truck
drivers or the drivers of the other vehicles. Moreover, the petitioner is not a
public servant and he was simply helping the customs officials only in recording
the name and truck numbers as well as the destinations etc. and apart from
that, he is not involved in the alleged offence. Further it is submitted that the
co-accused, i.e. the customs official against whom the allegation of bribe is
brought in the F.I.R., has already been granted with the bail by the learned
Special Judge after 30 (thirty) days of his custody. It is further submitted that
after the arrest of the present petitioner, along with the co-accused, the CBI
took the remand of them and after completion of their remand, they were sent
for judicial custody. The accused is behind the bar for more than 40 (forty) days
and thus, the Investigating Officer got ample opportunity to interrogate the
accused/petitioner keeping him in custody. Further it is prayed that there should
be parity in the orders passed by the Court as the co-accused has already been
granted with the bail and accordingly, the present accused/ petitioner is also
entitled for bail considering his bail prayer in same footing.
Page No.# 3/4
In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner
further relied on decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE SC
931; and Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka, reported in 2008 AIR
SCW 1003; as well as the judgment of Allahabad High Court passed in
Amarwati Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2005 Cri LJ 755 ALL. Citing those
judgments, it is submitted that the accused/petitioner should be granted with
the interim bail till receipt of the Case Diary and if the materials are available in
the Case Diary, then his bail may be cancelled.
In this context, the learned Standing Counsel, CBI, Mr. Haloi, has
submitted that the present accused/petitioner was caught red-handed by the
CBI officials while taking bribe from the truck drivers and he being a private
person, was asking bribe in the name of the custom officials which attracts
Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. More so, the law of parity cannot
be considered here in the instant case as the case of the co-accused, who was
granted with the bail by the learned Special Judge, is on different footing to that
of the present accused/petitioner and the learned Special Judge might have
released the co-accused on bail considering the materials in the Case Diary.
However, there is a directed allegation made against the present
accused/petitioner and he was caught red-handed while taking bribe of Rs.
1,500/- from the truck driver. Accordingly, it is submitted that perusal of the
Case Diary is necessary before passing any order on bail.
After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides
and also considering the nature of allegation brought against the present
Page No.# 4/4
accused/petitioner, I find that perusal of the Case Diary is necessary before
passing any order on bail.
However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, I find that a date may be fixed directing the CBI officials to furnish
the Case Diary before this Court on the next date of listing. In case of failure on
the part of the CBI in producing the Case Diary, the prayer for interim bail will
be considered.
List the matter on 18.09.2023 for production of the Case Diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
