Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 7, 13(1), 13(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 41A, 438 – Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Tax Department initiated search and seizure action against the complainant’s company – Respondent- Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was handling the case of the complainant – Allegation against the respondent that he made a demand of illegal gratification to help the complainant with his case – The said conversation of demand between the complainant and the respondent was recorded in a digital voice recorder – A trap was then laid – Respondent had asked to deposit an amount in a firm’s account – Complainant’s employee was sent to the firm with the bribe amount along with personnel from the ACB trap team and the bribe amount was deposited with the firm and it was acknowledged by the respondent to the complainant over a call – Thereafter, when an ACB team went to arrest the respondent, he along with the staff members physically assaulted the ACB team and escaped the office – FIR was registered u/ss. 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Respondent preferred an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Special Judge, which was rejected – However, the same was allowed by the High Court with a direction that despite anticipatory bail, the CBI could apply for police remand of the respondent and that upon the completion of the police remand, the respondent would be set free immediately – On appeal, held: The purported recording of conversation between the complainant and respondent wherein he thanked the complainant, after the deposit of amount in the firm’s account, is a reasonable link to connect respondent with the deposit of illegal gratification in firm, thereby prima facie showing acceptance thereof – The manner in which respondent forcefully evaded his arrest with the help of his colleagues and got the evidence destroyed, is a strong circumstance to indicate his complicity at this stage – There appears to be a well-organised syndicate comprising officers and officials of the Income Tax Department, businessmen and Hawala traders, who are in tandem – Such a nexus needs to be unearthed through investigation – Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside and the anticipatory bail application of respondent dismissed.
Bail – Anticipatory bail – Relevant factors for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail – The judicial discretion of the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case – The Court must draw a delicate balance between liberty of an individual as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the need for a fair and free investigation, which must be taken to its logical conclusion. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s. 17A – Prior Approval of Investigation – Requirement of – The First Proviso to S. 17A states that such approval is not necessary in cases involving arrest of the person on the spot on the charges of accepting undue advantage – Also, a prior approval or sanction to investigate such an officer in a trap case is likely to defeat the very purpose of trap and the investigation, which is not the underlying intention of the legislature.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438 – Cancellation of Bail – Cancellation of bail must be done only for cogent and overwhelming reasons – All that to be ensured is that the High Court exercises its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in conformity with the basic principles laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time in series of decisions.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The manner in which Respondent No. 1 forcefully evaded his arrest with the help of his colleagues and got the evidence destroyed, is a strong circumstance to indicate his complicity at this stage though a clear picture would emerge only on completion of investigation. [Para 30][494-H; 495-A]
2. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. [Para 31][495-B-C]
3. From the material placed on record, it seems that prima facie, the allegations against Respondent No. 1 cannot be brushed aside lightly at this stage. There appears to be a well-organised syndicate comprising officers and officials of the Income Tax Department, businessmen and Hawala traders, who are in tandem. Such a nexus needs to be unearthed through an unimpaired and unobstructed investigation. [Para 32][495-C-D]
3. Section 17A merely contemplates that police officers shall not conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the competent authority. The first proviso to the section states that such approval is not necessary in cases involving arrest of the person on the spot on the charges of accepting undue advantage. As may be seen, the first proviso to Section 17A refers to cases wherein a public servant is charged with acceptance of an undue advantage or attempt thereof. A prior approval or sanction to investigate such an officer in a trap case is likely to defeat the very purpose of trap and the investigation, which is not the underlying intention of the legislature. The investigation against Respondent No. 1, being an accused of demanding a bribe, did not require any previous approval of the Central Government. That apart, the accusation against Respondent No. 1 does not revolve around any recommendations made or decisions taken by him in his quasi -judicial or administrative capacity. [Paras 33, 34][495-E-H]
4. It is true that cancellation of bail must be done only for cogent and overwhelming reasons. Nevertheless, setting aside an unjustified order granting bail is distinct from cancellation of bail. This Court would not, invariably intervene into the judicial discretion exercised by the High Court while granting bail to an accused. All that to be ensured is that the High Court exercises its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in conformity with the basic principles laid down by this Court from time to time in a series of decisions. [Para 35][496-A-B]
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC
1 : [2020] 2 SCR 1 - followed.
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 : [2010] 15 SCR 201; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 : [1980] 3 SCR 383 – relied on.
State Rep. By The CBI v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC
187 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 737; Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2021) SCC OnLine SC 955; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171 : [2013] 12 SCR 772; Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730 : [2012] 7 SCR 469; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 : [2014] 8 SCR 128 Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995)1 SCC 349 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 278 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.