Jharkhand High Court
Sahil Ratusaria vs The Union Of India Through Cbi .... .... ... on 20 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:16304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.4330 of 2025
------
Sahil Ratusaria, age about 33 years, UID 829485943179, S/o Shri
Mangal Ratusaria, R/o- C K Iron Store, Old A.T. Road, P.O & P.S.-
Haibourgaon, Khuti Katia, Dist. Nagaon, Assam-782002 Present
Address; Qtrs. No.P-76/4, Litchi Bagan, P.O & P.S.-Namkum, Dist:
Ranchi .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through CBI .... .... Opp. Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Verma, Advocate
For the CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Spl. P.P. to CBI
Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to Spl. P.P.
------
04/Dated: 20.06.2025
Prayer
1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and
484 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in
connection with R.C. Case No. 02(A)/2025-R, registered for the
offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended)
Act, 2018, now pending in the court of learned Spl. Judge, C.B.I.-
cum-Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi.
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution case, on the basis of handwritten report, in
brief as under: -
One RC 02(A)/2025-R dated 19.03.2025, had been registered
on basis of handwritten report of one Pawan Kumar Dubey and
Amod Kumar Pandey, both partners of M/S Amod Kumar Pandey, to
2025:JHHC:16304
CBI on 24.02.2025, wherein, the informants have stated that they
are carrying out repair works at M.Η. Building and the site for the
work was handed over to from the unit in the month of October and
the time period for completing the work is till March and for which,
the bill is pending. Thereafter, they met and said that in this work,
the time period is till March and because the concerned user whose
unit is, also were given letter to hand over the site, which makes it
self-evident that site was handed over late. After lots of persuasion,
bill was prepared on 14.02.2025 but, till today, bill has not been
released due to not giving of money. Bill is of 27 Lakhs
approximately and at the rate of 2% demand is for Rs. 54,000/-.
It further appears that the said complaint of the informants
was verified by CBI officials and after verifying the same, he
submitted report and thereafter, finding the allegation prima facie
true, the present First Information Report has been registered.
Subsequent to the lodging of First Information Report, a trap team
was constituted consisting of C.B.I. officials including the informants
and two independent witnesses and a pre-trap formality was
conducted and after conducting pre-trap formalities, a pre-trap
memorandum was prepared. Trap team after completing all pre-trap
formalities laid a trap on 19.03.2025, in which, the petitioner was
caught for directing the complainants/informants to pay the bribe
amount of Rs. 40,500/- to Philip Xalxo, Cashier on his behalf.
2025:JHHC:16304
Thereafter after completing formalities, Rs. 40,500/- recovered
and the case was instituted against present petitioner and co-
accused Philip Xalxo u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and
charge sheet has also been submitted in this case against the
petitioner and co-accused Philip Xalxo u/s 61(2) of the BNS 2023
read with Section 7 of the Act, 1988.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
3. Mr. Rakesh Verma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has
falsely been implicated in this case and has committed no offence
as alleged in the First Information Report.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the
alleged bribe amount has not been recovered from the conscious
and constructive possession of the petitioner.
5. It has further been contended that the conspiracy was hatches
up by the informants to take revenge as the petitioner was always
insisting on quality work from them and for completion of projects
within stipulated time. The petitioner has issued a slow progress
letter and show cause to the firm of the informants in accordance
with rules and regulations governing the Contract Agreement.
6. It has been submitted that it is well settled law that when the
money was neither demanded nor recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner then no case under the Prevention of
Corruption Act (Act 1988) is made out against the petitioner.
2025:JHHC:16304
7. It has been contended that the charge-sheet has already been
submitted and the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent.
8. It has been submitted that the petitioner is languishing in
judicial custody since 20.03.2025, Since the petitioner has already
suffered incarceration for about three months, therefore, any further
detention of Petitioner/Applicant shall tantamount to inflicting
punishment upon the Petitioner/Applicant without affording him an
opportunity to prove his innocence during trial.
9. It has further been contended that the petitioner satisfies the
"TRIPLE TEST" of having unblemished life without any criminal
antecedents, being deeply integrated into society, and being willing
to comply with any conditions set for their release on bail and to face
trial. Further, the Petitioner/Applicants release shall not in any
manner prejudice either the investigation or trial.
10. On the aforesaid grounds the learned counsel for appellant has
submitted that petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Submission of the learned Spl. P.P. for the Opp. Party-CBI
11. While on the other hand, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned Spl.
P.P. appearing for the Opp. Party-CBI, however, has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail.
12. It has been contended that the petitioner has demanded
Rs.54,000/- as bribe for clearing the bills and co-accused Philip
Xalxo in the statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S.
2025:JHHC:16304
has confessed that he has received the aforesaid money from the
complainants at the behest of the petitioner.
13. It has further been contended that during the house search of
the petitioner, Rs.79.50 lakhs cash was recovered from his garage
and scrutiny of the seized documents is in progress to ascertain the
acquisition of assets by him. The said garage was handed over to
the petitioner along with attached quarter and the same was under
the control of the petitioner as one bullet motorcycle of petitioner
was also found in the said garage, therefore, the present petitioner
does not deserve the privilege of regular bail.
Analysis
14. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
15. Before delving in to the merit of the case, it requires to refer
herein the core of Section 7 of Act 1988, for ready reference the
same is being quoted as under:
"7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.--Any public
servant who,--
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an
undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance
of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause
forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another
public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage
from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest
performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty
either by himself or another public servant; or
(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly
2025:JHHC:16304
or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in
anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage
from any person,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall
also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.--For the purpose of this section, the obtaining,
accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself
constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by
public servant, is not or has not been improper.
Explanation 2.--For the purpose of this section,--
(i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall
cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or
"accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or
for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by
using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any
other corrupt or illegal means;
(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant
obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage
directly or through a third party.]"
16. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the demand of illegal
gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the
provisions of the Act, 1988. Further, in an offence under Section 7 of
the Act, 1988, the points requiring proof are:
(i) That, the accused at the time of the offence was, or expected to
be, a public servant;
(ii) that, he accepted or retained or agreed to accept, or attempted to
obtain from some person a gratification;
(iii) that, such gratification was not a legal remuneration due to him;
(iv) that, he accepted such gratification as a motive or reward, proof
of which is essential for (a) doing or forbearing to do an official act, or
2025:JHHC:16304
(b) showing or forbearing to show favour or dis-favour to someone in
exercise of his official functions, or (c) rendering or attempting to
render any service, or disservice to someone, with the legislative or
executive government, or with any public servant.
17. It needs to refer herein that the Court dealing with the grant of
bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against
the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima
facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this
stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Reference, in this regard may be taken
from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported
in (2013) 7 Scale 15, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed
which reads as under:
"28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of
the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the
accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with,
the larger interests of the public/State and other similar
considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of
granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable
grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the
Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether
there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution
will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.
It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
2025:JHHC:16304
18. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position, this
Court now adverting to the factual aspects of the present case.
19. It appears from the record that there is no bribe money alleged
to have been recovered from the physical and conscious possession
of the present petitioner.
20. Further, save and except the statement of Philip Xalxo as
recorded u/s 183 of the BNSS wherein it has been admitted that he
had received the bribe money which was paid in lieu of clearance of
bills has been accepted at the behest of the present petitioner,
nothing substantial has come on record against the present
petitioner.
21. So far as the recovery of the cash in tune of Rs.79.50 lakhs
from the garage of the petitioner during the house search is
concerned, it has come in the counter affidavit that scrutiny of the
seized documents is in progress to ascertain the acquisition of
assets by him disproportionate to his known source of income, since
charge-sheet has already been submitted, wherein, no acquisition
has been said to be made by the prosecuting agency regarding the
recovery of cash to the tune of Rs.79.50 lakhs.
22. Further from the rough transcript of the conversation as
available on the recovery cum seizure Memo, prima facie it appears
that petitioner had never handled any cash from the
complainant/informants rather the petitioner is saying to the
2025:JHHC:16304
informants that anything related to bill is to be handed over to the
cashier as he is the one who keeps accounts of TDS, GST etc.
23. Further, no bribe money has been recovered from the
conscious possession of the petitioner and the charge-sheet in this
case has already been submitted and the petitioner is languishing in
judicial custody since 20.03.2025.
24. On the basis of discussion made hereinabove and taking into
consideration the period of custody as also applying the principle the
Court is not required to go into a detailed examination of evidence at
this stage, is of view that the instant bail application deserves to be
allowed.
25. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed.
26. In consequence thereof, the petitioner, named above, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Spl. Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional
Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi, in connection with R.C. Case
No. 02(A)/2025-R, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall
co-operate in the trial, failing which, the learned trial court is at
liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
27. It is needless to clarify that during trial the case of the
petitioner shall be considered on its own merits without being
influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this
2025:JHHC:16304
Court as this Court has only considered herein that whether the
petitioner deserves to be granted bail or not.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Rohit/-
