Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 23 (HP)

Manish Bedi v. Central Bureau of Investigation

2023-01-06

VIRENDER SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 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. 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. 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. 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. Pretrial punishment has been prohibited under the law. 15. 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. Pretrial 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 (d). He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 18. The CBI is at liberty to move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail, if any of the condition, mentioned above, are found to be violated by the applicant. 19. He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 18. The CBI is at liberty to move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail, if any of the condition, mentioned above, are found to be violated by the applicant. 19. Any observation made herein above, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. Applicant may produce a downloaded copy of the order passed by the Court before the trial Court and the trial Court shall not insist for the certified copy of order, rather passing of order can be verified from the web-page of this Court.