2022 (1) TMI 1492

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tyagi, Adv., Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv., Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv., Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR ORDER: 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 11 November 2021 by which a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta rejected an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 "CrPC". 3. On 31 January 2018, RC 1(A)/2018/CBI/ACB/COCHIN was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation in Kochi. The allegation is that the then Commandant of the 83 Battalion of the BSF in Roshanbagh, Murshidabad, West Bengal accepted illegal gratification for rendering favours to smugglers of cattle across the Indo-Bangladesh border, resulting in a seizure o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing the payment of bribes to the Commandant of the 36th Battalion of BSF came to be deposited in a joint account. 5. On 21 September 2020, a case was registered against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 7, 11 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 "IPC". It may be noted at this stage that in the proceedings arising out of the case at Kochi, the appellant was permitted to travel to the UAE and, thereafter, to other countries, by orders dated 18 July 2019 and 4 September 2019. 6. In the meantime, the appellant received notices under Section 41A of the CrPC on 28 September 2020 and 16 October 2020. The appellant was placed under arrest on 6 November 2020. On 21 De....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6^th Battalion of BSF; and (iv) The appellant is an accused in another similar case registered in Kerala. He does not stand on the same footing as the other accused since he is the 'kingpin'. 8. Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that: (i) The appellant has been in custody since 6 November 2020 and the submission of the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet, after investigation, renders his continued detention in custody unnecessary; (ii) All the other accused, save and except for the appellant, have been enlarged on bail and bail has been granted to the Commandant of BSF, who is alleged to have accepted the bribe; (iii) All the offences for which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the conspiracy was hatched and bribes have been paid; and (vi) There is no perversity in the order of the High Court which is based on the conduct of the appellant; the allegations involved and the absence of parity. 10. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the continued detention of the appellant in custody is not warranted in the facts of the present case. The appellant was granted default bail by the Special Judge, CBI Court at Thiruvananthapuram on 7 May 2018. In the regular case out of which the present appeal arises, the appellant was arrested and has been in custody since 6 November 2020. The charge-sheet has been submitted on 6 February 2021 and a supplementary charge-sheet has been ....