TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is further contended that applicant along with three other officials was deputed to search the premises of the complainant and accordingly on 06.08.2020, the applicant along with three other officials went to the factory premises of the complainant and complainant had made the differential duty of 6% on 06.08.2020 and as per procedure, the officials of Commissioner, CGST have to put up the file for approval and closure of the investigation to the Commissioner, CGST for other directions and orders, if any and thus the applicant had nothing to do when the complaint had paid the diffrential amount and the applicant had no role to play after search had been concluded. It is further contended that there is no demand on the part of present applicant as per the complaint and the applicant was neither apprehended at the spot nor anything was recovered from him, which prima facie make out innocence of the applicant. It is contended that as per CBI case, co-accused Kuldeep Hooda was arrested from his house and the alleged bribe money was recovered from him and on 15.08.2020, the CBI raided the house of the applicant, but nothing incriminating was found there. It is also submitted that the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsive and applicant-accused ultimately abandoned Creta vehicle in which they had accepted the bribe amount from the complainant and the bribe amount and the vehicle were recovered and taken in possession by the CBI in the presence of the independent witnesses and applicant-accused could not be traced and is still absconding. It is also submitted that the relevant file was not found available during search at the office of accused persons and the same also needs to be recovered at the instance of the accused. It is also submitted that relevant CCTV footage dated 06.08.2020 of the factory of the complainant clearly shows that the complainant had put polythene containing part payment of bribe of Rs. 3 lacs in the small hand bag which was brought to the factory of the complainant by the accused CGST officials and subsequently the said hand bag containing part payment of bribe of Rs. 3 lacs was kept by the complainant in the vehicle of applicant-accused Gurvinder Singh Sohal. It is also submitted that as per direction of applicant-accused Gurvinder Singh Sohal and co-accused Kuldeep Hooda, the complainant had met them near the entrance gate of HSIIDC Industrial Area, Rai, District Sonep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Learned Senior PP for the CBI has made submission on the lines of averments made in the reply filed by the CBI and the same need not be repeated again here. Learned Senior PP has submitted that involvement of applicant-accused in the demand and acceptance of huge bribe amount from the complainant is writ large as detailed in the reply and that custodial interrogation of applicant-accused is very much necessary in the interest of investigation. It is argued that applicant-accused has been named specifically in the FIR and if such public servants, who indulge in corruption, are dealt with leniently, then the same will send wrong signals in society. It is also submitted that conduct of applicant-accused clearly reflects that he has no respect for rule of law and has been absconding since 14.08.2020 and therefore anticipatory bail application of applicant-accused deserves to be dismissed in view of allegations against him. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused and learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI and have gone through the record very carefully. 6. As per the prosecution case, case FIR No.RC0052020A0013 dated 13.08.2020 was registered against appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akhs as bribe, which had shattered and shocked the complainant. That said Kuldeep Hooda, Rohit Malik, and Pardeep had allegedly further kept on threatening the complainant by saying that Gurvinder Singh Sohal, Superintendent (accused/applicant) was very strict officer and that if the complainant would not pay the demanded bribe amount of Rs. 12 lakhs to them, Gurvinder Singh Sohal, Superintendent (accused/applicant) would initiate proceedings against them and that they would have to face legal action. It is further mentioned in the complaint that though the complainant did not want to pay any bribe to them, but due to the threatening and pressure mounted by them and keeping in mind their reputation in the industry, the complainant had talked to them and showed his inability to pay such a huge amount of Rs. 12 lakhs. Thereafter, the accused had negotiated with the complainant and finally the bribe amount was settled at Rs. 9 lakhs. Kuldeep Hooda, Superintendent conveyed the same to Gurvinder Singh Sohal, Superintendent (accused/applicant) who had directed the complainant to pay Rs. 4 lakhs as part payment of bribe to them on 06.08.2020 itself and that the complainant should visit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant, from his above mobile phone number, had made a phone call to Gurvinder Singh Sohal, Superintendent (accused/applicant) on his above mentioned mobile phone number, but Gurvinder Singh Sohal, Superintendent (accused/applicant) disconnected the phone call by saying "awaaj nahi aa rahi, savere gal karange". The conversation of both the above phone calls was recorded in the mobile phone of the complainant. It is also alleged that the activities of all the above four GST officials were captured in the CCTV installed in the factory premises. That as the complainant did not want to pay the bribe but under threatening and pressure mounted by the above named GST officials, he had made the part payment of bribe of Rs. 3 lakhs to accused/applicant Gurvinder Singh Sohal, Superintendent and above named three GST officials on 06.08.2020. As the complainant did not want to pay the remaining amount of bribe, he made written complaint dated 10.08.2020 to SP, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh for taking legal action. The said complaint was marked to Shri Naresh Kumar, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh for verification and report. Shri Naresh Kumar, Inspector after conducting ver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is also case of the prosecution that co-accused Kuldeep Hooda was traced at his residence in Rohtak and the accused and his family did not open the main gate for a long time and during said time they threw their ill gotten money to the tune of Rs. 64,25,000/- and gold jewellery in bags at neighbour's house, which was recovered and seized by the CBI team in the presence of independent witnesses and said accused Kuldeep Hooda was arrested on 15.08.2020 at 12:30 pm in the presence of independent witnesses and during the search proceedings said accused and his family members kept on threatening the CBI team of dire consequences. 7. Thus, as per the prima facie case of the prosecution, applicant- accused along with co-accused demanded bribe/undue advantage of Rs. 9 lacs from the complainant on 06.08.2020 and accepted Rs. 3 lacs as part payment of bribe on 06.08.2020 and further demanded and accepted remaining bribe amount of Rs. 6 lacs from the complainant on 14.08.2020. It is also case of the prosecution that the relevant CCTV footage dated 06.08.2020 of the factory of the complainant also reflects that complainant had put the polythene containing part payment of bribe of Rs. 3 l....