Gauhati High Court
Tolaram Pareek @ Aniket Pareek vs Union Of India on 31 August, 2024
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010163862024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2436/2024
TOLARAM PAREEK @ ANIKET PAREEK
S/O PRAHLAD RAI PANDIYA, R/O VILL- PULASAR, P.O.-DERAJSAR, P.S.-
CHURU, DIST- CHURU, RAJASTHAN, PIN-331402
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SC, CBI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K SINGH, P BORUAH,MR D K MEDHI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI,
Linked Case : AB/1967/2024
RAKESH JANGID
S/O HANUMAN JANGID
FLAT NO. 3-C
MARUTI MINAR APARTMENT
NEAR HERITAGE HOTEL
MAZGAON
P.S. AND P.O. TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784001
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SC
CBI
Page No.# 2/11
------------
Advocate for : MR. S K SINGH
Advocate for : SC
CBI appearing for UNION OF INDIA
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
31.08.2024
Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr S K Singh, for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh
Jangid, who has filed an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, with
prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with
CBI/ACB/GHY Case No. RC0172024A0003 of 2024, under Section 61(2) of BNS,
2023, read with Sections 7/7(a) of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), which is
registered as AB No. 1967/2024.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr S K Singh, for the petitioner, Shri Tolaram
Pareek @ Aniket Pareek, who has filed an application under Section 483 of the
BNSS, 2023, with prayer for bail as he was arrested on 21.07.2024, in connection
with the aforementioned CBI case, His bail application is registered as BA No.
2436/2024.
3. Heard Mr M Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI.
4. An FIR lodged by Sri Sudhir Chowdhury unfolds that Sri Rakesh Jangid,
Page No.# 3/11
Inspector of CGST, Tezpur, called Sri Sudhir Chowdhury over phone on 12.07.2024
and asked the informant to meet him in his office situated at Tezpur and Sri Rakesh
Jangid compelled the informant to pay gratification of Rs. 5 lacs for smooth
functioning of his business of hardware store. When he visited the office of Sri
Rakesh Jangid on the afternoon of 12.07.2024, he was threatened by Rakesh and
under duress, the informant was compelled to pay a gratification of Rs. 2 lacs as at
that time he had only Rs. 2 lacs with him. It is further alleged that, thereafter Rakesh
Jangid threatened the informant to pay the remaining amount by 20.07.2024, for
smooth functioning of his hardware business. The informant was not willing to pay
the gratification, but he was compelled to pay the same.
5. It is averred that a trap was laid and a team of CBI officials along with
independent witnesses, in execution of the trap, added phenolphthalein powder and a
solution to the currency notes, which were to be used for laying the trap. All the
required memorandums and documents were prepared and on 21.07.2024, the entire
team along with the witnesses proceeded to the place of occurrence. The trap was laid
and the entire proceeding of the trap was recorded and the petitioner, Tolaram Pareek
@ Aniket Pareek had accepted the gratification on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Rakesh
Jangid, who accepted the undue advantage of Rs. 3 lacs over phone. This
conversation was on loudspeaker and was also recorded. The petitioner, Tolaram
Pareek @ Aniket Pareek was arrested in connection with this case and he was
Page No.# 4/11
forwarded to custody.
6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Jangid that the petitioner
has a very good career and a good track record. He has been receiving 10 out of 10
points in his ACR for the last three years and the remarks on his ACR has been
always "Very Good" for the last 9 to 10 years. On the contrary, the informant is a tax
evader and when it has come to the notice of the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Jangid that the
informant is a tax evader, a concocted case has been slammed against the petitioner.
7. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Jangid that the CBI
has raided the petitioner's permanent residence as well as the petitioner's official
residence and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
Annexure-4 clearly reveals that after search and raid by the CBI, only cash of Rs.
19,000/- was recovered from the petitioner's permanent residence and this was also
handed over to the petitioner's father, Sri Hanuman Jangid. Annexure-4 clearly
reveals that no incriminating materials were recovered from the petitioner's
permanent residence, despite the fact that the search was conducted at odd hours, i.e.,
during the midnight of 22.07.2024. Annexure-5 also clearly reveals that no
incriminating materials were recovered from the workplace of the petitioner, Rakesh
Jangid, although search was conducted at odd hours. Annexure-6 also reveals that no
incriminating materials were recovered from the official residence of the petitioner at
Tezpur, despite the fact that the search was conducted from 07:30 pm to 11:45 pm.
Page No.# 5/11
8. It is further submitted that no call record could be linked between the petitioner,
Rakesh Jangid and Tolaram Pareek @ Aniket Pareek. It is further submitted that the
petitioner is not absconding. The petitioner was under treatment as he was suffering
from severe backache.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. -vs- The State of Punjab; reported in
AIR 1980 SC 1632. It is submitted that a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed that-
"11. The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
rejected the appellants' applications for bail after summarising, what
according to it is the true legal position, thus:
(1) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code,
is of an extra-ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly
in exceptional cases only;
(2) Neither Section 438 nor any other provision of the Code
authorises the grant of blanket anticipatory bail for offences not
yet committed or with regard to accusations not so far levelled.
(3) The said power is not unguided or uncanalised but all the
limitations imposed in the preceding Section 437, are implicit
therein and must be read into Section 438.
(4) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437,
the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the
power to grant anticipatory bail.
(5) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to
the police custody under Section 167 (2) can be made out by the
Page No.# 6/11
investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure
incriminating material from information likely to be received from
the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made
out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised.
(6) The discretion under Section 438 cannot be exercised
with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment
for life unless the court at that very stage is satisfied that such a
charge appears to be false or groundless.
(7) The larger interest of the public and State demand that
in serious cases like economic offences involving blatant
corruption at the higher rungs of the executive and political
power, the discretion under Section 438 of the Code should not be
exercised; and
(8) Mere general allegation of mala fides in the petition are
inadequate. The court must be satisfied on materials before it
that the allegations of mala fides are substantial and the
accusation appears to be false and groundless."
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
16. A close look at some of the rules in the eight-point code
formulated by he High Court will show how difficult it is to apply them in
practice. The seventh proposition says :
"The larger interest of the public and State demand that in
serious cases like economic offences involving blatant corruption at the
higher rungs of the executive and political power, the discretion under
Section 438 of the Code should not be exercised."
***** ***** ***** *****
23. It remains only to consider the second proposition formulated by the
High Court, which is the only one with which we are disposed to agree but we
will say more about it a little later.
Page No.# 7/11
***** ***** ***** *****
"36. We have said that there is one proposition formulated by the High
Court with which we are inclined to agree. That is preposition No. (2). We
agree that a 'blanket order' of anticipatory bail should not generally be
passed. This flows from the very language of the section which, as discussed
above, requires the applicant to show that he has "reason to believe" that he
may be arrested. A belief can be said to be founded on reasonable grounds
only if there is something tangible to go by on the basis of which it can be
said that the applicant's apprehension that he may be arrested is genuine.
That is why, normally, a direction should not issue under Section 438(1) to
the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail "whenever arrested for
whichever offence whatsoever." That is what is meant by a 'blanket order' of
anticipatory bail, an order which serves as a blanket to cover or protect any
and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity, in fact any eventuality, likely
or unlikely regarding which, no concrete information can possibly be had.
The rationale of a direction under Section 438(1) is the belief of the applicant
founded on reasonable grounds that he may be arrested for a non-bailable
offence. It is unrealistic to expect the applicant to draw up his application
with the meticulousness of a pleading in a civil case and such is not
requirement of the section. But specific events and facts must be disclosed by
the applicant in order to enable the court to judge of the reasonableness of
his belief, the existence of which is the sine qua non of the exercise of power
conferred by the section."
10. On the contrary, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI has relied on the
decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in P Chidambaram -vs- Directorate of
Enforcement' reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198, wherein it has been held and observed
that-
Page No.# 8/11
"67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation
to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other
purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power
and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-
arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial
discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after
application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation;
possibility of applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide
whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of
anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation
of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising
such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be
granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the
court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that
extraordinary remedy.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
75. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and other
judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in
exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and
another (2012) 4 SCC 379, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence
are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the
court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima
facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the
crime and would not misuse his liberty."
76. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being an extraordinary remedy,
has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences.
Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic
fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain
Page No.# 9/11
(1998) 2 SCC 105, it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not
entitled to anticipatory bail."
11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner Rakesh
Jangid has been evading investigation. The CBI even went to the hospital, but he was
not found in the hospital. His house was searched, but he was not found in his house.
If the medical documents marked as Annexure-9 series of the petition are true then
why was he not found in the hospital when the CBI went searching for him in the
hospital.
12. It is submitted that investigation would be adversely affected if both the
petitioners, Rakesh Jangid and Shri Tolaram Pareek @ Aniket Pareek, are admitted
to bail. If the informant was a tax evader then action ought to have been taken against
him, but instead of taking action, the petitioner, Rakesh Jangid is evading arrest. The
other petitioner, Shri Tolaram Pareek @ Aniket Pareek, has been trapped in an
entrapment proceeding.
13. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the ratio of
the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court P Chidambaram -vs- Directorate of
Enforcement' reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198, is not applicable to the instant case,
despite the fact that the learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision
of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in P Chidambaram's case (supra).
14. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.
Page No.# 10/11
15. Indeed the facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into
consideration while considering the prayer for anticipatory bail. There is no
straightjacket formula how prayer for anticipatory bail has to be considered.
16. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary.
17. There are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against both the petitioners.
However, I have considered the length of detention of the petitioner, Shri Tolaram
Pareek @ Aniket Pareek. The petitioner, Shri Tolaram Pareek @ Aniket Pareek, has
been behind bars since 21.07.2024.
18. It appears that further custodial detention may not be required for the progress
of investigation.
19. The petitioner, Tolaram Pareek @ Aniket Pareek is enlarged on bail of Rs
30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand), with one suitable surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Additional Court No. 3, Guwahati, under
the conditions that:
(i) the petitioner shall cooperate with the remaining part of investigation,
ii) the petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which they are alleged,
and
iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior
permission.
Page No.# 11/11
20.1. On breach of any of the bail conditions, bail order shall automatically stand
cancelled.
21. The submissions on behalf of the petitioner, Rakesh Jangid cannot be considered at
this juncture. There are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner.
He is holding a responsible post and the allegations against him are grave.
22. It appears that investigation may be adversely affected if the petitioner is insulated
by an order of anticipatory bail. The power under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 cannot
be exercised in an untrammeled manner. In the light of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case (supra) and P Chidambaram's case (supra), it is held
that the petitioner Rakesh Jangid is not entitled to bail, at this stage.
23. Considering all aspects and in view of my foregoing discussions, the
application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, AB No. 1967/2024, is rejected at
this stage.
24. Send back the Case Diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
