TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Challenged detention legality & sought bail after CBI arrest.</h1> The Applicant challenged the legality of his detention and arrest by the CBI, arguing that it was unlawful and violated his constitutional rights. The ... Grant of Regular Bail - Section 437/439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - flight risk - tampering evidence - influencing witnesses - it is submitted that the entire case against the Applicant is completely false and fabricated - HELD THAT:- The Applicant has no role to play in the transactions alleged in the FIR, the complaint dated 27.12.2019 and/or the verification memo dated 27.12.2019/28.12.2019. As stated above, he was illegally detained on 31.12.2019 while he was on his way to the airport and was thereafter forced to carry out various acts against his wishes and under pressure and coercion of the CBI officials. The Applicant has not demanded or accepted any bribe amount, nor has made any attempt to do so. Even as per the case of CBI in the remand Application dated 02.01.2020, the Applicant has not handled the tainted money at any point of time. There is no circumstance adverse to the grant of bail. That the Applicant has no criminal antecedents. The Applicant has been falsely named in the said FIR - the Applicant undertakes to abide by any directions or conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court in granting him bail. The Applicant has preferred the present Application bona fide and in the interest of justice. The Applicant has not filed any such or similar Bail Application either before this Hon’ble Court or before the Hon’ble High Court - bail granted. Issues Involved:1. Legality of Detention and Arrest2. Tampering of Evidence3. Influencing of Witnesses4. Flight Risk5. Merits and Gravity of the OffenceDetailed Analysis:1. Legality of Detention and Arrest:The Applicant contends that he was illegally detained by the CBI on 31.12.2019 at JW Marriot Hotel, Delhi, while waiting to take a flight to Dubai. He was apprehended by individuals claiming to be CBI officers, detained, and coerced into making calls and traveling back to Ludhiana against his wishes. The Applicant was not informed of the grounds of his arrest, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 41B Cr.P.C. He was produced before the Ld. Special Judge on 02.01.2020, who dismissed the CBI's application for 07 days of police custody remand, remanding him to judicial custody instead. The Applicant argues that his detention and subsequent arrest were illegal and that his family was not informed, which is a constitutional violation.2. Tampering of Evidence:The Applicant asserts that this is a case of documentary evidence, which is already in the possession of the CBI. There is no reasonable apprehension that he will tamper with evidence. The CBI has not alleged any tampering of evidence by the Applicant. The Applicant's premises were searched, and nothing incriminating was found. The voice samples have been obtained, and there is no further evidence or material to be recovered from him.3. Influencing of Witnesses:The Applicant maintains that there is no material to show that he has influenced any witness or attempted to do so. The CBI has not produced any record to establish that the Applicant or his associates tried to contact or suborn witnesses. There is no allegation of influencing witnesses by the CBI.4. Flight Risk:The Applicant argues that he has deep roots in society, being a respectable businessman with significant social and charitable engagements. He employs about 2,000 persons and his presence is required for managing his business. There is no apprehension of him fleeing from justice. The CBI has not alleged that he is a flight risk, and he undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the court.5. Merits and Gravity of the Offence:The Applicant contends that the alleged offence under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years and is not 'grave' or 'serious'. He cites the judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, which emphasizes that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The Applicant argues that the merits of the case should not be examined in detail at the bail stage, as per the precedent set in Niranjan Singh & Anr. v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors. He asserts that the case against him is false and fabricated, and he has no role in the alleged transactions. He was coerced into actions against his will by the CBI officials.The Applicant emphasizes that he has no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated. He undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by the court while granting bail, asserting that he satisfies the triple test for the grant of bail and there is no reason to deny it.Prayer:The Applicant prays for the grant of regular bail under Section 437/439 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIR No. RC-DAI-2019-A-0042, subject to conditions deemed fit by the court. He also seeks any other order deemed proper in the interest of justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
