Sarabjit Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 921 j&K

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
                   LADAKH AT JAMMU

                                                    Reserved on: 03.05.2023
                                                  Pronounced on: 11 .05.2023

                            Bail App No. 117/2023

Sarabjit Singh                           ...PETITIONER(S)
      Through: - Mr. Rahul Pant Sr. Advocate with
                     Mr. Dhruv Pant Advocate.

Vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation Jammu and anr

                                          ...RESPONDENT(S)
      Through: -     Ms. Monika Kohli Sr. AAG


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE


                                   JUDGMENT

1) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court

under Section 439 of the Cr. P. C seeking bail in FIR

No. RC0042023A0008 dated 06.04.2023, registered with CBI (ACB)

Jammu for commission of offences under Section 120-B IPC read with

Section 7 of PC Act 1988.

2) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that a complaint dated

21.03.2023 came to be filed by one Satbir Singh Raina alleging therein

that the petitioner, who happens to be the Chief Horticulture Officer,

was demanding bribe of Rs.10.00 lacs from the complainant for his

posting and to resolve his departmental issues including his promotion.

After conducting preliminary verification, FIR in question came to be

registered against the petitioner and other public servant. On

07.04.2023, a trap was laid and the petitioner was caught red-handed

while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.10.00 lacs from the

complainant in presence of independent witnesses. During the trap

proceedings, co-accused Mohd Farooq Dar, the middleman was also

caught red-handed while taking over bribe amount from the petitioner

in presence of independent witnesses. Both the accused were arrested

and are in custody since then.

3) It appears that the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (CBI

Cases) Jammu vide his order dated 25.04.2023 has rejected the bail

application of the petitioner which has prompted him to file the instant

bail application.

4) It has been contended by the petitioner that the bribe money has

not been recovered from him and, in fact, the same has been recovered

from the co-accused Mohd Farooq Dar. It has been further submitted

that the petitioner is seriously ill and has multiple health issues

including non-alcoholic Liver Cirrhosis. It has also been submitted that

the petitioner was taken to Dayanand Medical College (DMC),

Ludhiana for treatment while he was in custody in terms of the order of

the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (CBI CASES) Jammu. It has been

further submitted that petitioner is suffering from serious ailments and

requires regular follow up with the Doctors and in case he is not

enlarged on bail, it may endanger his life.

5) On merits, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not been

booked for any offence which carries imprisonment beyond 07 years,

as such, he is entitled to grant of bail in terms of the directions issued

by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 . It has also been

contended that the petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody and

the respondents have not even sought custody of the petitioner which

means that they do not require his custody in connection with

investigation of the case.

6) The respondent has filed its reply and contested the bail

application. It has been submitted that the investigation of the case is at

its initial stage and that the petitioner is very influential, as such, there

is every likelihood that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence.

It has been further submitted that the petitioner is involved in grave

offence and he has entered into a criminal conspiracy with other

accused for demanding bribe of Rs.10.00 lacs from the complainant. It

has been contended that the petitioner is a part of well-knit bribery

racket involving middlemen and other senior public servants. Lastly, it

has been contended that the petitioner is involved in an economic

offence which is a class apart and, as such, his case cannot be equated

with any normal crime.

7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record of the case.

8) So far as health condition of the petitioner is concerned, the

medical record shows that the petitioner is suffering from liver

Cirrhosis. The record further shows that the petitioner needs regular

follow up as also regular blood sugar monitoring. The medical record

indicates that the petitioner also needs to follow proper diet chart as

prescribed by the Doctor. It seems that the petitioner, while in custody,

was taken to DMC Ludhiana for undergoing specialised treatment. This

was done pursuant to the directions passed by the Special Judged Anti

Corruption (CBI case) Jammu on 25.04.2023.

9) Form the medical record, it is clear that the health condition of

the petitioner is not up to the mark, though it cannot be stated that his

health condition has deteriorated to such an extent as would endanger

his life. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the petitioner is suffering

from multiple ailments that require constant follow up treatment and

monitoring.

10) Coming to the merits of the case, the petitioner has been in

custody for the last about one month. The respondent, while making an

application for remand of the petitioner before the Special Judge Anti

Corruption (CBI case) Jammu, sought his judicial remand, though it

could have well sought his police remand. This means that the custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is no longer required by the respondent.

So far as the bribe amount is concerned, the same has already been

recovered by the respondent and it has not even been claimed by the

respondent that any more recovery is to be effected from the petitioner.

Therefore, further custody of the petitioner with the respondent may not

be needed in the instant case.

11) So far as the contention of learned counsel for the respondent

that the petitioner is involved in an economic offence which is a class

apart is concerned, it is to be noted that the offence alleged to have

been committed by the petitioner is not of such a nature as would

involve investigation of a large magnitude as is generally required in

the cases relating to embezzlement, tampering of documents and

forgery etc. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has

demanded bribe from the complainant. The tainted money stands

already recovered. So, it is not a case where the search and seizure of

documents and money is required to be conducted by the respondent to

unearth the conspiracy as is generally associated with the cases

involving financial scams. The allegations against the petitioner cannot

be equated with an economic offences of large magnitude which call

for search and seizure of materials from different persons stationed at

different locations.

12) Denying bail to the petitioner on the ground that he is

involved in an economic offence having regard to the nature of

allegation against him would amount to inflicting punishment upon him

without trial which is impermissible in law. Despite evolution of law

relating to bail over the last many decades, the golden principle that

'bail is the rule and jail is an exception' still continues to hold good.

Unless there are exceptional circumstances to deny bail in cases where

there is no legal or statutory bar to grant of bail, the bail cannot be

refused as a measure of punishment.

13. For the foregoing reasons, it appears that the petitioner has

carved out a case for grant of bail in his favour. Accordingly, the

appellation is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to

the following conditions:

(i) That he shall furnish personal bond in the amount of Rs.50,000/ with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

(ii) That he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when required;

(iii) That he shall not leave the territorial limits of Union Territory of J&K without prior permission of the Investigating Officer;

(iv) That he shall surrender his passport, if any, before the Investigating Officer;

(v) That he shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses/evidence;

(vi) That he shall not indulge in similar activities;

The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge

Jammu 11 .05.2023 "sanjeev, PS"

                Whether the order is speaking:          Yes
                Whether the order is reportable:        Yes