Jharkhand High Court

Arvind Kumar Pandey vs The Union Of India Through Cbi on 12 January, 2024

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                              A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023
                                                        With
                                              A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023
                          1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023
                              -----

Arvind Kumar Pandey, aged about 43 years, son of Sudhir Kumar Pandey, Gramin Dak Sewak, Head Office, Giridih Division, Department of Post, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih, District Giridih 815 301 (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI, Dhanbad ... ... Opp. Party With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023

-----

-------

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate

------

th Order No. 07/Dated 12 January, 2024

1. Since these two applications are interlinked with each

other, as such they are being analogously dealt with by this

common order.

2. Apprehending arrest, the applicant herein seeks

anticipatory bail in both these applications filed under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in

connection with R.C. case no.10(A)/2019(D) registered under

Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477A of Indian Penal

Code (IPC) and under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (In short Act, 1988) as

also in R.C. case no.01(A)/22(D) registered under sections

13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

With

Facts A.B.A 6126 of 2023

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of

present application is that the applicant being Gram Dak

Sewak (GDS), has been charged for the offence under

Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477A of Indian Penal

Code (IPC) and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The case of prosecution in short is that a written

complaint dated 16.12.2019 has been received from Shri R.P.

Singh, Superintendent of Post Offices, Giridih Division,

Giridih regarding fraudulent withdrawals from 24 fake SB

accounts at Giridih Town (Sub-Post Office).

5. It is alleged in the complaint that during the period

2014-2018 accused persons namely, Md. Altaf, the then Asst.

Post Master (Counter SB), Giridih HO, Shri Shashi Bhushan

Kumar, the then Asst. Post Master (Counter SB), Giridih HO,

Shri Basudeo Das, the then Sub Post Master, Giridih Town

SO, Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, the then Sub Post Master,

Giridih Town SO and others unknown entered into criminal

conspiracy amongst themselves and in pursuance thereof

made fraudulent deposits in 24 fake Saving Bank Accounts

opened at Giridih Town Sub Office without any corresponding

credit entries in the A/c of Giridih HO.

With

6. Subsequently, fraudulent withdrawals to the tune of

Rs.9,30,24,696.65 made from the said fake 24 SB accounts

on different dates.

7. Accordingly, a case was registered against the

aforesaid accused persons and others unknown under

sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477A of Indian Penal

Code (IPC) and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

8. The name of present applicant has surfaced during

the investigation and after investigation, the CBI submitted

charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 06 of 2021 dated

28.10.2021 under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467,

465, 471, 477A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2)

read with Section 13(1)(a) and section 7 of Prevention of

Corruption Act against the petitioner and other co-accused

persons.

9. Apprehending his arrest, the applicant had moved for

grant of anticipatory bail in Misc. Criminal Application No.

538 of 2023, however the same was rejected vide order dated

25.05.2023 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions

Judge-III-cum-Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad against which the

present anticipatory bail application has been filed.

A.B.A 6996 of 2023

10. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of

present application is that, the applicant being Gram Dak

With

Sewak (GDS), has been charged with the offence under

Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.

11. The case of the prosecution in short is that

information was received and collected during investigation of

R.C. Case No. 10(A)/2019-D, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad dated

17.12.2019 and R.C. Case No. 02(A)/2021-D, CBI, ACB,

dated 10.08.2021, both registered against Md. Altaf, the then

Assistant Post Master, Giridih, Head Office and others and

the subsequent verification of the same revealed that Arvind

Kumar Pandey (the present applicant) while posted and

functioning as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) at Giridih Head Post

Office and Branch Office of Giridih, Division, Giridih during

the period i.e. from 10.12.2010 to 24.08.2021 intentionally

enriched himself illicitly and amassed huge assets (both

movable & immovable) in his name and in the name of his

family members which are disproportionate to his known

sources of income to the tune of Rs.6,81,85,873/- (Rupees

Six Crore Eighty One Lakh, Eighty Five Thousand Eight

Hundred and Seventy Three) and acquisition of the same

cannot be satisfactorily accounted for.

12. Accordingly, a case being R.C. case no.01(A)/22(D)

was registered against the present applicant under Sections

13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

13. After investigation the CBI submitted charge sheet

vide charge sheet no. 06 of 2022 dated 28.12.2022 under

With

Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of

Corruption Act corresponding to section 13 (2) read with 13

(1) (b) of Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended by the

Prevention of corruption amendment Act 2018) against the

applicant.

14. Apprehending his arrest, the applicant had moved for

grant of anticipatory bail in Misc. Criminal Application No.

537 of 2023, however the same was rejected vide order dated

27.04.2023 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions

Judge-III-cum-Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad, against which the

present anticipatory bail application has been filed.

Submissions

15. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that

the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

In this context, he submitted that the petitioner working as

GDS in Clearing House of the Head Office during the period

2016-2018 where his work was of messenger and he was only

supposed to collect the cheques from the bank and give to the

competent officer at the Head Post Office and he has got

nothing to do as GDS in this episode.

16. It is submitted that the cheque clearing work is a part

of treasury and the postal assistant / treasurer (regular clerk)

is only responsible for such act and the petitioner being a

messenger, was nowhere involved in the work of clearing of

cheque.

With

17. The learned counsel for the applicant has further

contended that the entire prosecution case is based on

assumption that the petitioner has facilitated for clearing of

cheques but it is not the case because the co-accused Shashi

Bhushan Kumar was posted as Treasurer at Giridih H.O. at

the relevant time and he was solely in-charge and authorized

to clear the cheques.

18. Further, the petitioner has never applied and allotted

such ID and password as the departmental rules of GDS does

not authorize for GDS work in CDS FINNACLE system at

Giridih H.O.

19. It is further contended that the applicant was the

then GDS and was engaged on a part time basis for a

maximum 03 to 05 hours a day, as such, he never came

under the ambit of public servant as defined in the statute

and, as such, the implication of the applicant under

prevention of corruption Act is totally misplaced and the

entire prosecution case so far applicant is concerned is based

upon false and frivolous grounds.

20. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellant that so far as allegation of disproportionate assets

during relevant check period against the applicant is totally

misconceived because the petitioner has/had agricultural

income from several acres of land which he has inherited

from his joint family through inheritance or through will.

With

21. It is further submitted that the petitioner had several

ancestral and gold jewelleries which were sold on record and

the sale proceeds in crores have come to the account of the

applicant. The ancestors of the applicant got the land and the

rights to do various poojas and the applicant's and his family

has more than thousands jajmans who have traditionally

been gifting cash and other valuables items etc. to the

applicant's family for more than 100 years and the traditional

gifts given by villagers of several villages has also added

sufficient income to the petitioner. Further the applicant has

also acquired huge income by renting out his acres of land to

some known persons and entering into agreement. But, the

aforesaid income of the petitioner has been ignored by CBI.

22. Further, learned counsel for the applicant, to buttress

his argument, has relied upon the judgment as rendered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar

Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported

in (2022) 10 SCC 51 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has

observed that the question of personal liberty is the

paramount consideration being the fundamental right and

even in a case of criminal nature, consideration is to be given

before snatching the personal liberty of the person concerned

as granted under Article 21 of the constitution of India.

23. In view of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel

for the applicant, submitted that the case is made out for

exercising the powers vested with the Court for granting pre-

With

arrest bail and accordingly, the instant applications may be

allowed.

24. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State, has

vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail

contending that the involvement of the applicant in the

instant case is established and considering the seriousness of

the offence and in the interest of the society at large, these

applications may not be allowed.

25. It is further submitted that the instant case is about

dishonest and illegal withdrawal of Government money from

alleged 24 fake saving accounts of Giridih Town SO by using

the details of already used demand drafts/cheques and the

present applicant while working in clearing house made

dishonest and fraudulent entries of details of already used

demand drafts at Giridih Head Post Office by using his User

ID in FINACLE as the role of maker/operator.

26. Further, it has been submitted that so far as the

allegation of disproportionate assets is concerned, it is

revealed during investigation that assets of the applicant at

the beginning of check period i.e. as on 10.12.2010 was

Rs.12,400.00 and the assets at the end of the check period

i.e. on 24.08.2021 was Rs.5,35,25,340.54 and, as such,

assets worth Rs.5,35,12,940.54 was acquired during the

check period i.e. on 10.12.2010 to 24.08.2021.

27. The aforesaid facts prima facie discloses commission

of cognizable offences by the applicant which is punishable

With

u/s 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act

1988 corresponding Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (as amended in 2018).

28. In the aforesaid premises, he submitted that the

applications having no any merits, deserves to be dismissed.

Analysis

29. This Court has carefully analysed the rival

submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective

parties and perused the entire record.

30. Before adverting to the issue raised by the respective

parties, let us consider the settled law with respect to

granting and/or refusing the anticipatory bail.

31. It has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court time and

again in its various pronouncements that the powers under

Section 438 Cr.P.C., is in extra-ordinary character and must

be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only and therefore,

the anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional

circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that

the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime, as

grant of anticipatory bail to some extent, is interference in the

sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court

must be cautious while exercising such powers.

32. It is also settled connotation of law that the grant or

refusal of the application should necessarily depend on the

facts and circumstance of each case and there is no hard and

With

fast rule and no inflexible principles governing such exercise

by the Court.

33. It is pertinent to mention here that the law on grant of

anticipatory bail has been summed up by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Siddharam Satlinappa Mhetre vs. state of

Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694 after

due deliberation on the parameters as evolved by the

Constitution Bench in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of

Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565. The relevant

paragraphs of the said judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court is being quoted hereunder:-

"111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia case [(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] that the High Court or the Court of Session has to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour.

112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

With

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because overimplication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of

With

grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.

114. These are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration while deciding the anticipatory bail applications. These factors are by no means exhaustive but they are only illustrative in nature because it is difficult to clearly visualise all situations and circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise discretion is exercised by the Judge concerned, after consideration of the entire material on record then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this jurisdiction only to the Judges of the superior courts. In consonance with the legislative intention we should accept the fact that the discretion would be properly exercised. In any event, the option of approaching the superior court against the Court of Session or the High Court is always available."

34. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)

reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 the Constitution Bench of the

Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that while deciding

applications for anticipatory bail, Courts should be guided by

factors like the nature and gravity of the offences and the role

attributed to the applicant and the facts of the case.

35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in catena of decisions,

has categorically held that the judicial discretion of the Court

while considering the anticipatory bail shall be guided by

various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the

facts and circumstances of each case. Reference in this

With

regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of

Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another reported in

2023 SCC OnLine SC 427. For ready reference the relevant

paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted herein

under:

"24. The time-tested principles are that no straitjacket formula can be applied for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court must draw a delicate balance between liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the need for a fair and free investigation, which must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has devastating and irreversible social stigma, humiliation, insult, mental pain and other fearful consequences.

Regardless thereto, when the Court, on consideration of material information gathered by the Investigating Agency, is prima facie satisfied that there is something more than a mere needle of suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise the investigation, more so when the allegations are grave in nature."

36. It is evident from the record that the allegation

against the petitioner is also levelled under various provisions

of the Act 1988, as such, at this juncture this Court thinks it

fir and proper to discuss the object and purpose of the Act

1988.

With

37. Objects of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is to

make effective provisions for the prevention of bribery and

corruption rampant among the public servants. It is a social

legislation intended to curb illegal activities of public servants

and is designed to be liberally construed so as to address its

object.

38. In State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, reported in (2000) 5

SCC 88, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the object of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was to make effective

provisions for prevention of bribe and corruption amongst

public servants. It has been further held that it is a social

legislation to curb illegal activities of public servants and

should be liberally construed so as to advance its object and

not liberally in favour of the accused.

39. In the light of aforesaid principles and as per the

object of the Act 1988, it may be inferred that it is the duty of

the Court that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted

and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight

against corruption. That is to say, in a situation where two

constructions are eminently reasonable the Court has to

accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one

which seeks to perpetuate it. Reference in this regard may be

taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr.

Manmohan Singh reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64.

With

40. In light of the aforesaid legal proposition and taking in

to consideration the rival submissions of the learned counsel

for the parties, this court is now adverting to the facts of the

present case to reach out the conclusion that the case of pre-

arrest bail for the applicant is made out or not.

41. From the material produced on record, this Court

found that the instant case is about dishonest and illegal

withdrawal of Government money from alleged 24 fake saving

accounts of Giridih Town SO by using the details of already

used demand drafts/cheques of Sub-Post Offices under

Giridih Head Post Office amounting to Rs.2,62,26,389/- made

at Giridih Town Sub-Post Office during the period 2016-2018

under connivance by accused public servants comprising of

Post Master, Assistant Sub-Post Masters, Sub-Postmaster,

Gramin Dak Sewaks(GDS) of Head Post Office/Sub-Post

Office, Giridih in contravention of laid down norms and

procedures of Department of Post for deriving undue

pecuniary advantage and for causing wrongful loss to the

Department of Post.

42. From perusal of the charge-sheet, which is appended

with the present application, it appears that the applicant

while working in Clearing House, made dishonest and

fraudulent entries of already used demand drafts at Giridih

Head Post Office by using his User ID-ARVINDPANDEY in

FINACLE as the role of maker/operator. Upon entries of

details of double charged demand drafts, accused Md. Altaf,

With

in the role of Supervisor, dishonestly verified those entries in

FINACLE system with his FINACLE ID MDALTAF-1982 while

working as APM SB counter at Giridih Head Post Office (HO)

in connivance with accused persons.

43. Investigation has further revealed that accused

persons namely Basudeo Das and Krishna Das has illegally

processed details of all 115 demand drafts of

Rs.2,62,26,389/- at Giridih Town SD and Arvind Kr Pandey

(the applicant) and Md Altaf has made fraudulent entries and

illegally processed details of 72 already used demand drafts

amounting to Rs. 1,68,71.360/- at Giridih HO.

44. Further the applicant has surrendered/returned

defalcated money amounting to Rs 61,77,050/- in cash

through his uncle Vasudeo Pandey into treasury on different

dates and the return of said defalcated money into

Government account at the time when the fraud was

exposed/detected is also very much relevant to the case and

the said instance of return of money by Arvind Kr Pandey

(applicant), and other accused persons, recovery of cash,

huge investment in fixed deposits etc. has shown the illegal

withdrawal of money.

45. It has come in the charge-sheet that the present

applicant has amassed huge investment in fixed deposits in

the nationalized banks and in life insurance policies in his

name and in the name of his family members during the

relevant period and said properties are put under freeze.

With

46. It is further evident from the charge sheet that the

applicant received total income of Rs.70,50,808/- (approx.)

from his known sources of income, viz. salary income of wife,

other income as mentioned in ITR, etc. during the Check

Period of 10.12.2010 to 24.08.2021 and his total expenditure

during the check period was Rs 2,17,23,741.00 (approx) in

the form of household kitchen expenses and towards LIC

policies in his name and the name of the family members.

Thus, Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey is found to be in possession

of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.6,81,85,873

approximately to his known sources of income during the

check period i.e 10.12.2010 to 24.08.2021.

47. Further during investigation, it has revealed that the

applicant and his wife Anjal Devi have filed Income Tax

returns during the assessment year 2013-2014 to 2021- 2022

(except 2018-2019 for Anjali Devi) whereas his son Brajesh

Kumar Pandey has filed income tax return for the assessment

year 2016-2020 & 2020-2021. The income declared by them

in their returns have been considered for assessing the

income of applicant. Although applicant's wife is house wife

and his son Brajesh Kumar Pandey is a student, IT returns

have been filed in their name to accommodate illegal money of

the applicant.

48. The foremost argument as emphasised by the learned

counsel for applicant that the post of the applicant doesn't

With

come under the purview of public servant, hence the charges

under the Act 1988 cannot be imposed upon the applicant.

49. In the aforesaid context it appears from the record

that the job profile of Gramin Dak Sevak(GDS) includes

overall management of postal facilities, maintenance of

records and payment bank services in branch post offices. It

includes all functions of Mail Carriers and Mat Deliverers,

door-step delivery/payments under IPPB in Branch Post

Office/SO/HO. His duty and responsibility involves managing

affairs of GDS Post Offices and, as such, GDS in his capacity

perform the public work.

50. Further the public duty as stipulated under section

2(b) of the Act 1988 means a duty in the discharge of which

the State, the public or the community at large has an

interest.

51. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat v.

Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, reported in 2020 (2) RCR

(Criminal) 544, has observed that evidently, the language of

Section 2(b) of the Act 1988, indicates that any duty

discharged wherein State, the public or community at large

has any interest is called a public duty.

52. Further as per the definition of Public Servant as

stipulated in section 2(c) sub-clause (viii) of Act 1988, it

appears that any person who holds an office by virtue of

which he is authorised or required to perform any public

duty, will come under the ambit of public servant.

With

53. In State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Prabhakar Rao

& Anr., reported in (2002) 7 SCC 636, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that the definition of 'Public Servant' U/s 21 of IPC

is of no relevance under the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988.

54. In Manish Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan, reported

in (2014) 14 SCC 420, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that

a member of the Municipal Board or a Municipal Councilor

per se may not come within the definition of public servant as

defined U/s 21 of IPC but this does not mean that they

cannot be brought in the category of public servant by any

other enactment.

55. In the aforesaid circumstances, the nature of work as

performed by the applicant, the present applicant comes

under the purview of the Act 1988, therefore, the contention

of the learned counsel for the applicant in this context does

not appear to be correct.

56. Further the learned counsel has put reliance upon the

judgment as rendered by the hon'ble Apex Court in Satender

Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

(Supra) and raised the question of snatching away the

personal liberty of the accused person but it is the considered

view of this Court that grant or refusal of the application

should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstance of

each case and there is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible

principles governing such exercise by the Court. Reference in

With

this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of

Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another (Supra).

57. Thus, this Court by referring to the materials placed

on record by the CBI is of the considered view that prima

facie, the allegations against the present applicant cannot be

brushed aside lightly and also there appears to be a well-

organised syndicate comprising various officials of the postal

Department who are in tandem and, as such, this type of

nexus needs to be unearthed.

58. In the facts of present case, it is useful to refer to and

rely on the case of Niranjan Hem Chandra Sashittal Vs.

State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 wherein the

hon'ble Supreme Court observed that corruption is not to be

judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys

societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions,

kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions,

paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the

sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. The

Apex Court further observed that immoral acquisition of

wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty

and history records with agony how they have suffered; and

the only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects

such suffering as it is in consonance with constitutional

morality. The emphasis was on intolerance to any kind of

corruption bereft of its degree.

With

59. Further in Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.B.I reported

in (2014) 8 SCC 682, the Constitutional Bench of the

Supreme Court observed that corruption is an enemy of the

nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and

punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the 1988

Act.

60. The hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central

Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another

(Supra) has observed that corruption poses a serious threat to

our society and must be dealt with iron hands. the relevant

paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted herein

under:-

"31. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, "Corruption is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority." Hence, the need to be extra conscious."

Conclusion

61. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and

circumstances, as have been analysed hereinabove, the

applicant failed to make out a special case for exercise of

power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters,

With

necessary to be considered for adjudication of anticipatory

bail, without commenting on the merits of the case, this

Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its

discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, this

Court is of the view that the anticipatory bail applications are