TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bansal, Ld. Special Judge, PC Act/CBI, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. Duty Judge") and Order dated 06.01.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court. 3. That the CBI registered an FIR dated 29.12.2019 bearing no. RCDAI-2019-A-0042 under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with S. 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) against inter alia, the Applicant herein, on the basis of a written complaint dated 27.12.2019 lodged by the Complainant Sh. Sudhir Gulati. All offences in the FIR are punishable upto maximum period of 7 years. The allegations in the FIR and the Complaint dated 27.12.2019 and the alleged verification memo dated 27.12.2019/28.12.2019, against the Applicant are completely false and fabricated and he Applicant has been wrongly named in the FIR. 4. It is submitted that the Applicant was illegally detained and taken into custody by CBI on 31.12.2019 in New Delhi. In this regard, the following events are relevant:- a) The Applicant was illegally detained by the CBI on 31.12.2019 at JW Marriot Hotel, Delhi when he was waiting there to take a flight to Dubai at 4.20 PM from IGI Airport, New Delhi. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....day i.e. 02.01.2020 at 8 am, the Applicant was forcefully made to sign on an arrest memo. However, even at that stage or any stage thereafter, he was not informed of the grounds of arrest. Even the family members of the Applicant were not informed of the arrest, which is violative of the constitutional mandate in Article 22(1) of the Constitution and statutory mandate in Section 41B Cr.P.C. i) The above events show that the CBI from 31.12.2019 illegally detained the Applicant and forcefully made him do certain acts against his wishes. The Applicant reserves his right to detail the incidents of 31.12.2019 and 01.01.2020 at an appropriate stage. 5. Thereafter, on 02.01.2020 (i.e. after about 48 hours), the CBI produced the Applicant before Ms. Kiran Bansal, Ld. Special Judge, PC Act/CBI, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, and filed an Application seeking 07 days Police Custody Remand of the Applicant and other Accused persons. The Ld. Duty Judge after hearing both the parties was pleased to dismiss the Application seeking 07 days P/C remand by CBI as no sufficient grounds were made out for P/C remand and remanded the Accused to Judicial Custody till 06.01.2020. True copy of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to contact any of the witnesses or made any attempt to suborn witnesses or tamper with documentary evidence. There is no such allegation of influencing witnesses by the CBI. 12. As per the CBI's own case no recovery has been made from the Applicant. The Applicant's premises has already been searched on 03.01.2020 and nothing incriminating has been recovered therefrom. Furthermore, as per the CBI the voice samples of the Applicant have also been obtained. It is further submitted that there is no further evidence or material to be recovered from the Applicant by the CBI. Further, it is not even the case of the CBI that the Applicant is required for the purposes of any recovery or discovery in the instant case. 13. It is pertinent to mention that even this Hon'ble Court in its Order dated 06.01.2020 held that no further recovery is to be made in this case and the investigation is almost complete. Re: Flight Risk 14. It is submitted that the Applicant is having deep roots in the society and there is no apprehension of the Applicant fleeing from justice. The Applicant is a very respectable businessman who has been in the business for over 2 decades. The Applicant's business ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accused persons and as a step to ensure the fair trial of the accused that he be on bail, unless there are overwhelming considerations otherwise. It is submitted that the Applicant deserves to be granted bail since he is required to brief and instruct counsel and prepare for the trial. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 held that: "27. [...] It was observed that the principle to be deduced from the various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent person must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence." 21. Insofar as the issue of merits and gravity of offence are concerned, it is submitted that merits of the case ought not to be gone into at the time of adjudication of a bail application. In Niranjan Singh & Anr. v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 55....