Himachal Pradesh High Court

Manish Bedi vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 6 January, 2023

Bench: Virender Singh

                                                  1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                            Cr.MP(M) No.2736 of 2022
                                            Date of decision : 06.01.2023




                                                                               .

    Manish Bedi                                           ...... Applicant/Petitioner

                                   Versus





    Central Bureau of Investigation                           ......Respondent


    Coram:





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the Petitioner           : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with

                                   Mr.   Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate.

    For Respondent               : Mr. Anshul                  Bansal,          Special     Public
                                   Prosecutor



    Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

Applicant-Manish Bedi has filed the present

application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), for releasing him on bail,

during pendency of the trial, in case No.RC0962022A0005,

dated 13.12.2022, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act'), with

CBI, Shimla.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. As per the factual position, the applicant has been

arrested in a case under Section 7 of the PC Act. The applicant

is stated to be working as Senior Tax Assistant in the Income

Tax Department and posted at Parwanoo.

3. It is the case of the applicant that he is an innocent

person and has falsely been implicated, in this case. The

investigation, according to the applicant, has already been

completed and nothing is to be recovered from him or at his

instance. The applicant is also stated to be in judicial custody.

According to the applicant, the trial against him will take

sufficient long time and no useful purpose would be served by

keeping him in the judicial custody.

4. Apart from this, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the applicant has given certain undertakings, for

which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, released on

bail.

5. When put on notice, the respondent-CBI has filed

the status report disclosing therein, that the present application

is liable to be rejected. On the basis of decision(s) of Hon'ble

Apex Court in cases titled as The State Vs. Captain Jagjit

Singh, AIR 1962 SC 215; Ram Govind Upadhyay

Vs.Sudarshan Singh, AIR 2002 SC 1475; and Criminal

Appeal No.861 of 2022 titled as Deepak Yadav Vs. The State

of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 20th May, 2022, the CBI has

expressed the following apprehensions, if the applicant is

ordered to be released on bail:

.

"1. Nature and seriousness of offence.

2. Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses

being tamper with.

3. The larger interest of the public or the state.

4. The circumstances peculiar to the accused.

5. The character of the witnesses.

6. A reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured during trial.

7. Similar other considerations which arise

when a court is asked to admit accused to

bail in a non bailable offence."

6. On facts, the present application has been opposed

on the ground that a case bearing No. No.RC0962022A0005

dated 13.12.2022 registered under Section 7 of the PC Act with

CBI, Shimla against the applicant on the basis of the written

complaint received from Sh. Ketan Kumar.

7. According to the version of the complainant-Ketan

Kumar, he is running a factory i.e. M/s Dewlite Industries, Plot

No.16-17, Sector 5, Parwanoo (closed now) since 2010. He has

filed an application in Income Tax Office at Parwanoo for the

refund of Income Tax for the financial year 2013-14 (AY 2014-

15). In this regard, he met accused-applicant Manish Bedi, who

introduced himself as Inspector of Income Tax. In lieu of

processing the Income Tax refund of Rs.5.00 lacs, the accused-

applicant Manish Bedi demanded 3% of the refund amount i.e.

Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant.

8. It is further case of the CBI that after credit of the

Income Tax refund in the account of the complainant, the

applicant had kept on demanding Rs.15,000/- as and when he

met the complainant. When the complainant had refrained from

paying any bribe to the applicant, then he had allegedly warned

the complainant that he will not process the refund of the

Income Tax for the subsequent year. Under the compelling

circumstances, the complainant had agreed to pay the bribe

amount, however, being a law abiding citizen, the complainant,

according the CBI has approached the authorities at Shimla

with the written complaint on 12.12.2022.

9. The CBI had verified the complaint and also recorded

the conversation between the applicant and the complainant

and as such, the demand of Rs.15,000/- was ascertained. Not

only this, according to the status report, the applicant had also

given assurance to the complainant that he will facilitate the

refund of the Income Tax for the subsequent year, for which, the

file is stated to be pending, in appeal section, where the

applicant was posted as Tax Assistant.

10. Hence, the FIR in question was registered on

13.12.2022 and thereafter, a trap was laid and applicant was

caught red-handed, while accepting the bribe money of

Rs.15,000/- from the complainant, in the presence of

independent witnesses. After the arrest, the applicant was

produced before Special Judge, CBI, Shimla. He was remanded

to three days' police custody. During the investigation, his voice

sample was taken and the said sample was sent to the CFSL for

comparison along with the questioned conversation. The

accused is now stated to be in judicial custody. Highlighting the

seriousness of the offence and expressing the apprehensions, as

stated above in para 5, Sh. Anshul Bansal, learned Special

Public Prosecutor, has opposed the prayer.

11. Lastly, it has been prayed by Sh. Anshul Bansal,

learned Special Public Prosecutor, that the report of the CFSL is

still awaited and till the receipt of the report, the applicant is not

liable to the released on bail.

12. Arguments heard. File perused.

13. First of all, coming to the case law, as mentioned in

the bail application, with due respect to the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cases, the applicant's case

is liable to be considered, according to the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case.

14. The applicant is admittedly in judicial custody,

meaning thereby, his custodial interrogation is no longer

required by the CBI. When his custodial interrogation is not

required by the CBI, then no useful purpose would be served by

keeping the applicant in judicial custody. The trial against the

accused will take sufficient long time and no useful purpose

would be served by keeping him in judicial custody. Despite

being arrested in the alleged trap, presumption of innocence is

still available to the applicant. Moreover, bail application cannot

be rejected merely to punish the accused before his trial. Pre-

trial punishment has been prohibited under the law.

15. So far as the apprehensions, which have been

expressed by the CBI, in the status report and heavily relied

upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor are concerned, to

the considered opinion of this Court, those apprehensions, at

this stage, are unfounded, as the applicant is the permanent

resident of District Solan. Even for those apprehensions,

reasonable conditions can be imposed in case, the applicant is

ordered to be released on bail.

16. Learned Special Public Prosecutor could not satisfy

the judicial conscience of this Court as to how the report of

CFSL, with regard to the alleged conversation of the applicant,

with the complainant, would affect the right of the applicant to

be released on bail.

17. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view

that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, during the

pendency of the trial. Consequently, his bail application is

allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his

furnishing bail bond, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, with two

sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned

Special Judge (CBI), Shimla. This order, however, shall be

subject to the following conditions:-

a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if

prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

b). He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor

hamper the investigation of the case in any manner

whatsoever;

c). He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises

to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, and