2022 (3) TMI 95 - HC - Indian Laws

Chartered Accountant granted bail in Corruption Act case: Conditions & restrictions apply

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court considered the ... Seeking grant of Regular Bail - Bribery - illegal gratification - evidence on record/document to show that the applicant was aware of the source of the money or not - HELD THAT:- On a specific query from the learned SPP for CBI as to whether there exists any call or transcript of any conversation between the applicant and the accused/Akil Ahmad, apart from the calls exchanged during the trap proceedings, the answer was given in the negative. Concededly, even in the recovered WhatsApp messages, no mention of any bribe or bribe amount was found. It has been alleged in the FIR that accused/Akil Ahmad was in the habit of asking for illegal gratification, however learned SPP, on instructions, informed that apart from the present case, no other case has been registered against him or the present applicant - It has also come on record that the mobile phone and laptop of the applicant have been seized and he has also given his voice samples. Reportedly, different amounts have been recovered from the accused persons. The CBI is stated to have recovered an amount of ₹ 3.71 crores during the investigation from co-accused/Mahim Pratap Singh Tomar, who has already been released on bail. An intimation regarding the same is stated to have been given to the Income tax authorities. The co-accused persons, namely Retnakaran Sajilal, Sunil Kumar Verma and Uma Soni have also been granted bail. Except the order dated 07.01.2022, whereby co-accused/Devendra Jain was admitted to regular bail, no other order granting bail to co-accused persons has been challenged till date. The present applicant, a Chartered Accountant, is stated to be a resident of Delhi, having deep roots in society. Besides, it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant is ready and willing to surrender his Passport. The same, in the opinion of this Court, alongwith appropriate conditions, can secure the applicant’s presence during the trial and allay any apprehension regarding him being a flight risk - this Court is inclined to release the present applicant on bail during the pendency of the trial. Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed. Bail application allowed. Issues:Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with issues of illegal gratification, professional conduct, and tampering with evidence.Analysis:The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, sought regular bail in a case involving allegations under Sections 7/8/9/10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner argued that he was unaware of the bribe transaction and had no knowledge of the illegal activity. The defense highlighted the lack of evidence connecting the petitioner to any wrongdoing, emphasizing the absence of incriminating call transcripts and the circumstances of the alleged bribe handover. The defense also compared the petitioner's situation favorably to that of co-accused individuals who had been granted bail earlier.The prosecution opposed the bail application, asserting the petitioner's close association with the main accused and the incriminating phone calls during the trap proceedings. The prosecution alleged a larger conspiracy involving the main accused habitually demanding bribes and the petitioner's role as the Chartered Accountant for the main accused. The prosecution cited Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the seriousness of economic offenses and the potential for tampering with evidence as reasons to deny bail.The court considered the seriousness of the offense, peculiar circumstances of the accused, likelihood of fleeing from justice, impact on witnesses and society, and potential for tampering with evidence as per Supreme Court guidelines. The court noted the lack of evidence linking the petitioner to the bribery scheme beyond the trap proceedings and the absence of mention of bribes in recovered WhatsApp messages. The court acknowledged the seizure of the petitioner's electronic devices and voice samples. The court also highlighted the bail granted to other co-accused individuals and the lack of evidence of tampering by the petitioner.Based on the facts and circumstances, the court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions such as a personal bond, surrender of passport, cooperation in the investigation, maintaining contact details, refraining from contacting witnesses, and appearing before the court regularly. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to comply with the bail conditions and not leave the country without court permission. The court clarified that the bail decision did not reflect on the case's merits or influence the trial proceedings.