2025 (12) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail denied to alleged prime conspirator in CGST impersonation bribery case under Section 61(2) BNS, PC Act

HC considered an application for bail in a case involving offences under Section 61(2) BNS and Sections 7, 7A Prevention of Corruption Act, where the ... Seeking grant of bail - offences under Sections 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - demand of bribe/illegal gratification - applicant is alleged to have impersonated himself as the Commissioner of CGST and even changed his name as Mishraji and hatched a conspiracy alongwith two other - HELD THAT:- The investigation in the matter has been concluded and charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet have also been filed. The prosecution has prima facie been successful in establishing the guilt of the applicant. The applicant impersonated himself as Commissioner of CGST and hatched a conspiracy against the complainant to extort illegal gratification. The presence of the applicant in the Starbucks Coffee Shop is apparent from the video footage and he has been identified by the complainant alongwith various other witnesses as is evident from the return filed by the respondents. His voice sample has also been identified by the witnesses and there remains no manner of doubt that the applicant was present at that place. From the materials available on record, it transpires that the applicant is the prime conspirator as he introduced himself as Commissioner of the CGST and on his instructions, the other two co-accused assisted in commission of the crime in question. Further, the conduct of the applicant is also not acceptable as he had tried to abscond despite repeated notices issued by CBI under Section 35(3) BNSS at multiple addresses on 28.02. 2025, 04.03.2025 and 10.03.2025, and has evaded execution of the non-bailable warrant issued by the learned trial Court. When the applicant has been identified by the complainant and other witnesses, his presence has been established at the Starbucks Coffee shop where the negotiations for bribe took place and there is evidence in the form of CCTV footage, the rejection of the bail to the co-accused which having affirmed by the Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case where the applicant should be enlarged on bail. The bail application filed by the applicant/accused for the offences under Sections 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), is rejected. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether, in a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant made out a case for release in a prosecution under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). 1.2 Whether the prosecution material, including CCTV footage, voice recordings, identification memos and witness statements, disclosed prima facie involvement of the applicant in the alleged conspiracy, impersonation and demand of illegal gratification. 1.3 Whether the earlier rejection of bail of co-accused by the Court and affirmation of that rejection by the Supreme Court, together with the applicant's conduct (abscondence and non-cooperation), militated against grant of bail. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Entitlement to bail under Section 483 BNSS in the facts of the case Interpretation and reasoning 2.1 The Court considered that the applicant was arraigned for offences under Section 61(2) BNS and Sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), arising from a trap in which a co-accused was caught red handed accepting Rs. 5,00,000/- as bribe. 2.2 The applicant's case was that he is a private individual, falsely implicated as a mere facilitator; that he neither demanded nor received any bribe; that the only material against him comprised electronic records (sound tracks, CCTV) and allegedly defective identification, which were said to be inconclusive and insufficient to justify prosecution; and that delay in trial due to sanction against other public servants, and his fixed residence, favoured bail. 2.3 The prosecution, contesting bail, relied on the complaint, trap proceedings, and subsequent investigation showing that the applicant impersonated a non-existent 'Commissioner Mishra' of CGST, participated in the demand and negotiation of bribe, coordinated with public servants, and was part of an organized conspiracy to extract illegal gratification, supported by multiple strands of evidence. 2.4 The Court noted that investigation had concluded, charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet had been filed, and that the gathered material prima facie established the role of the applicant as a key conspirator, rather than a peripheral actor. The nature of the allegations-impersonation of a Commissioner and conspiracy with serving public officials to extract bribe-was considered grave. Conclusions 2.5 In view of the gravity of offences, the prima facie evidence of conspiracy and impersonation, and the conduct of the applicant, the Court held that this was not a fit case for exercise of discretion under Section 483 BNSS to grant bail. Issue 2: Sufficiency and weight of prima facie material (CCTV, voice recordings, identifications, trap evidence) Interpretation and reasoning 2.6 The Court considered the prosecution case that on being directed by a CGST officer to meet 'senior officer Mishra' for settling tax liability, the complainant met the applicant at Starbucks, where the applicant, impersonating 'Commissioner Mishra', discussed tax liability, demanded Rs. 45 lakhs (Rs. 11 lakhs as tax; Rs. 34 lakhs as bribe) and negotiated the settlement. This meeting was stated to be captured in CCTV footage. 2.7 The Court took into account that the co-accused Vinay Rai was caught red handed during trap proceedings while accepting Rs. 5,00,000/- from the complainant in furtherance of the demand, and that contemporaneous phone calls between Vinay and the complainant's brother immediately before the trap indicated coordination for the bribe payment. 2.8 The Court noted that the CCTV footage of Starbucks dated 29.01.2025 was seized and that the applicant was identified therein as the person acting as 'Mishra' by multiple witnesses, including: an ex-employee (Pragya Mishra), other private witnesses (Anurag Gupta and Kamlesh Kumar Sahu), the complainant and his brother, and Starbucks staff; similar multiple identifications were recorded for co-accused Vinay Rai. 2.9 The Court further noted that the applicant's voice was identified from recorded conversations (obtained during verification and trap proceedings) by several witnesses under voice identification memos. The applicant eventually provided a voice sample under direction of the trial court for scientific comparison; his reluctance and initial refusal were noted adversely. 2.10 The Court relied on the prosecution's showing that the applicant's presence at Starbucks was corroborated by CCTV footage and identification, and that his participation in bribe negotiations was corroborated by recorded conversations, IPDR analysis, and consistent witness statements, including that he introduced himself as Commissioner, discussed tax figures, and fixed the bribe component. 2.11 The Court rejected, at the bail stage, the applicant's contention that electronic evidence and identifications were inconclusive or legally infirm, holding that, as matters stood, the material raised a strong prima facie case and such evidentiary objections were to be tested at trial. Conclusions 2.12 The Court held that the combined effect of CCTV footage, voice recordings, identification memos, trap proceedings and supporting witness statements prima facie established the applicant's physical presence at the scene, impersonation as Commissioner, and active role in demanding and negotiating the bribe, thereby justifying denial of bail. Issue 3: Effect of co-accused bail rejections, Supreme Court affirmation and applicant's conduct on the bail discretion Interpretation and reasoning 2.13 The Court recorded that bail applications of co-accused Bharat Singh and Vinay Rai in the same crime had been rejected earlier by the Court, and that the challenge to that rejection by Bharat Singh before the Supreme Court had also been dismissed. The Court considered this as a relevant circumstance indicating the seriousness of the case and the Court's earlier assessment of the conspiracy. 2.14 The Court further considered the applicant's conduct: he remained absconding despite repeated notices issued under Section 35(3) BNSS at multiple addresses and evaded execution of a non-bailable warrant issued by the trial court, appearing only months after filing of the main charge sheet; and during police custody he was evasive and initially refused to provide his voice sample. 2.15 This conduct was viewed as unbecoming and indicative of non-cooperation, adding to the apprehension of misuse of liberty and interference with the course of justice were bail to be granted. Conclusions 2.16 Considering the prior rejection of bail to co-accused (affirmed by the Supreme Court), the applicant's central role in the alleged conspiracy, and his conduct in evading process and initially resisting investigative steps, the Court concluded that the balance of factors weighed firmly against enlarging the applicant on bail.