Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 247 (JK)

Ved Parkash v. Centre Bureau of Investigation

2022-05-13

JAVED IQBAL WANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner herein seeks bail in FIR No. RC0042022A0004, dated 11.04.2002, registered with Police Station CBI, ACB, Jammu for offence under Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amendment Act, 2018). 2. As per the prosecution case, petitioner herein a Police Inspector, as per the complaint of one Mohd. Ashraf, Selection Grade Constable in J&K Police, demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- for closing a complaint filed against the said complainant- Mohd. Ashraf. 3. As per the prosecution version after carrying out the investigation of the complaint, FIR No. RC0042022A0004, dated 11.04.2002 came to be registered and upon laying a trap on11.04.2022, the petitioner herein came to be caught red-handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant in presence of independent witnesses. 4. According to the learned counsel, earlier a bail application came to be filed by the petitioner herein before the Court of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases) Jammu on 12.04.2022, which came to be dismissed on the very same date. 5. According to the learned counsel, the allegations leveled in the FIR in question against the petitioner are highly motivated and full of personal grudge of the complainant with motive to tarnish the image of the petitioner. The petitioner is contended to have been falsely implicated in the case and held in judicial custody ever since his arrest. 6. According to the learned counsel, the continuous detention of the petitioner would amount of pre-trial conviction and will not serve any purpose in view of the nature of the allegations. 7. Objections have been filed to the petition by the respondents wherein it is being stated that the petitioner while holding a responsible post has committed a serious offence while demanding and accepting bribe from the complainant for discharging an official duty. The prayer of grant of bail is being opposed in the objections by the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the appearing counsel for the parties, it would be advantageous and appropriate to refer to the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court from time to time in the matter relating to bail. The Apex Court in case titled as Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2012 (1) SCC 40 , laid down as follows:- "21. The Apex Court in case titled as Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2012 (1) SCC 40 , laid down as follows:- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty". 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 24. In the instant case, as we have already noticed that the “pointing finger of accusation” against the appellants is 'the seriousness of the charge'. The offences alleged are economic offences which has resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is possibility of the appellants tampering witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor : The other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the Constitutional Rights but rather "recalibration of the scales of justice". 25. The provisions of Cr.P.C. confer discretionary jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant bail to accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions, since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual. 34. More recently, in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , this Court observed that "(j)ust as liberty is precious to an individual, so is the society's interest in maintenance of peace, law and order. Both are equally important". 35. This Court further observed: "116. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case." This Court has taken the view that when there is a delay in the trial, bail should be granted to the accused [See Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569 , Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P., (2000) 9 SCC 443 , Mahesh Kumar Bhawsinghka v. State of Delhi". 9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled Mohd. Razak & Anr. v. State of J&K & Anr., reported in 2007 Supreme (J&K) 48 has laid as follows:- "8. 9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled Mohd. Razak & Anr. v. State of J&K & Anr., reported in 2007 Supreme (J&K) 48 has laid as follows:- "8. So long as there were no such Special provisions in force providing severe punishment and stringent provisions regarding bail during investigation and trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and such like other Laws, persons accused of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, cannot, in my opinion, be treated differently to deny them consideration for bail during investigation and trial merely because they were alleged to be involved for infraction of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006. 9. While considering release of persons accused of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, general principles governing grant or refusal of bail and provision of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are undoubtedly required to be kept in view, and bail in such non-bailable offences may not be claimed, as of right, and in the absence of any special circumstances warranting refusal of bail, the well recognized principle that bail is the rule and refusal an exception would always be a guiding factor for the Courts while considering the grant or refusal of bail in such cases. 10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles of law and reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, the petitioner has been arrested by the respondents on account of having allegedly received bribe from the complainant-Mohd. Ashraf, during a trap at the instance of the said complainant. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Police Officer and it is not the case set up by the respondents that the petitioner is having such a background as a result of which he would influence the witnesses. 12. Indisputably, the main witness in the matter is the complainant a Police Officer, the other evidence in the matter collected by the respondents against the petitioner is such regarding which there is not even a remote chance of asserting influence by the petitioner. There is also not an apprehension expressed by the respondents that there is likelihood of the petitioner fleeing from the process of law or else tempering with the evidence, more so, when the same is substantive in nature. 13. There is also not an apprehension expressed by the respondents that there is likelihood of the petitioner fleeing from the process of law or else tempering with the evidence, more so, when the same is substantive in nature. 13. The consequence of pre-trial detention of the petitioner having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case would be grave, in view of the most celebrated and settled principle of law that an accused is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty. 14. In view of the aforesaid position, it is manifestly clear that there would be no danger to the course of justice at the hands of the petitioner, so much so there is no likelihood that the petitioner if enlarged on bail would repeat the offence. The apprehension expressed by the respondents in their objections against the grant of bail to the petitioner are merely speculative based on surmises and conjectures. 15. For what has been observed, analyzed and considered hereinabove, the petitioner has been able to carve out a case for indulgence by this Court and consequently, for grant of bail which, accordingly, is granted subject to the following conditions:- (i) Furnishing one surety bond in the sums of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of Registrar Judicial this Court with furnishing of personal recognizance's of like amounts before Superintendent District Jail, Amphalla Jammu; (ii) that the petitioner/accused shall not influence the prosecution witnesses or intimidate them or dissuade them from deposing before the court; (iii) (that the petitioner/accused shall appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing during the trial except for special circumstances beyond their control; (iv) that the petitioner/accused shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without seeking prior permission; (v) that in case respondent/CBI collects any material during the period the petitioner/accused are on bail that he is influencing the witnesses or has tried to intimidate them the prosecution would be within their rights to move an application before this court for cancellation of the bail.