2020 (9) TMI 1183 - DSC - GST

Court denies anticipatory bail due to serious bribery allegations; emphasizes need for custodial interrogation.

The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant-accused, citing the need for custodial interrogation and the seriousness of the ... Grant of Anticipatory Bail - acceptance of huge bribe amount from the complainant - Raids of the factory - physically the stocks of raw material were much more than that was recorded in the books - HELD THAT:- Accused Kuldeep Hooda and present applicant Gurvinder Singh Sohal are alleged to have demanded and accepted the remaining bribe amount of ₹ 6 lacs on 14.08.2020 in moving Creta vehicle, but the accused after getting apprehensive, abandoned the vehicle and the bribe amount as well as the vehicle were recovered and taken in possession by the CBI in the presence of independent witnesses and applicant-accused is absconding since 14.08.2020. Applicant-accused along with co-accused demanded huge bribe amount from the complainant and there are also recorded conversations indicating prima facie active involvement of applicant-accused in the alleged offences and therefore custodial interrogation of applicant-accused is very much necessary in the interest of investigation. No public servant can be allowed to behave and act as an extortionist. The menace of corruption is eating into the vitals of our society and the same needs to be dealt with sternly. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances and in the light of allegations against the applicant-accused, this Court of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary power of granting anticipatory bail to the applicant-accused. Without commenting on the merits of the case, present bail application of applicant-accused, namely, Gurvinder Singh Sohal for grant of anticipatory bail, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Application for anticipatory bail by the accused.2. Allegations of bribery and corruption.3. Arguments by the defense regarding innocence and false implication.4. Prosecution's opposition to the bail application.5. Judicial determination on the necessity of custodial interrogation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Application for Anticipatory Bail by the Accused:The applicant-accused sought anticipatory bail in case RC No. RC0052020A0013 dated 13.08.2020, under Sections 120 IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). The defense argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to a grudge held by the complainant. The defense emphasized that the applicant was not involved in any demand for bribes, was not apprehended at the spot, and nothing incriminating was recovered from him. The defense cited several legal precedents to support the argument that the applicant should not be deprived of his liberty without compelling reasons and expressed the applicant's willingness to cooperate with the investigation.2. Allegations of Bribery and Corruption:The prosecution's case is based on a complaint dated 10.08.2020, alleging that the applicant-accused and other officials demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 9 lakhs from the complainant. The complainant alleged that the officials threatened legal action unless the bribe was paid. The complaint detailed the events of 06.08.2020, including the demand for bribes and the payment of Rs. 3 lakhs as part payment. The prosecution also presented evidence of a recorded conversation and CCTV footage supporting the allegations.3. Arguments by the Defense Regarding Innocence and False Implication:The defense argued that the applicant-accused conducted a legitimate search at the complainant's factory, found deficiencies in GST payments, and had no role after the search concluded. The defense contended that there was no demand for bribes by the applicant and that the entire case is based on documentary evidence already in possession of the CBI. The defense also highlighted that the applicant's liberty should not be compromised without compelling reasons and that the applicant is a respectable person unlikely to abscond.4. Prosecution's Opposition to the Bail Application:The prosecution opposed the anticipatory bail application, arguing that the applicant-accused's active involvement in the crime is well-established and that custodial interrogation is essential. The prosecution detailed the need to recover relevant files, part payment of the bribe, and to confront the applicant-accused with other co-accused officials. The prosecution also highlighted the applicant-accused's attempts to evade arrest and the recovery of bribe money from the vehicle and nearby bushes. The prosecution emphasized that leniency towards such public servants would send wrong signals in society.5. Judicial Determination on the Necessity of Custodial Interrogation:The court, after considering the arguments and evidence, determined that the applicant-accused's involvement in demanding and accepting bribes is prima facie established. The court noted the need for custodial interrogation to further investigate the case and recover relevant evidence. The court emphasized the seriousness of corruption and the necessity of dealing with it sternly. Consequently, the court concluded that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant-accused and dismissed the bail application.Conclusion:The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant-accused, Gurvinder Singh Sohal, citing the need for custodial interrogation and the seriousness of the allegations. The court emphasized that corruption must be dealt with sternly and that the applicant-accused's involvement in the crime is prima facie established.