Delhi High Court: In a petition filed for the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for a crime registered under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the PC Act’), Chandra Dhari Singh, J., undoubtedly, the allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused were grave and against public morale. However, at the same time, this Court was required to consider and appreciate the settled law that a bail should not be withheld as a punishment. It had been enunciated time and again that deprivation of bail must be considered as a punishment and that every man was deemed to be innocent until duly tried and proven to be guilty.
Thus, the Court granted the bail to the accused on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Background
The accused was working on the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police at PS Hauz Khas when the allegations of demanding and accepting bribe were made against him. On 02-05-2024, the accused was marked to seek an Action Taken Report (‘ATR’) in a complaint filed by an advocate for registration of an FIR against the advocates, ‘Mr. A’ and ‘Mr. R’ and his associate, by alleging that they have cheated him for an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs on the pretext that they would get his house tax matter settled in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Thereafter, another complaint dated 17-11-2023 was filed by the complainant seeking registration of an FIR against the abovementioned advocate ‘Mr. A’ and his brother, who was an employee of ONGC, alleging that the aforesaid people falsely assured the complainant that on payment of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, a tender would be allotted for independence-day celebration of ONGC, thereby procuring Rs. 1.5 lakhs each, from him. The abovesaid complaint was also marked to the accused for filing an ATR.
However, based on complaint dated 18-07-2024, Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) registered a case against the accused. It was alleged in the complaint by Mr. A, that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 3 lakhs from him in exchange of setting the aforesaid matter in his favour. Subsequently, the accused was arrested on 19-07-2024, as an envelope containing the bribe amount was recovered lying on his office table. Being aggrieved of the same, the accused filed an application before the District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, CBI, Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi (‘Special Judge’) seeking regular bail. However, the aforesaid bail application was dismissed considering that the investigation was at a very initial stage and the chargesheet was yet to be filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner had been accused of demanding and accepting a bribe amount of Rs. 2,50,000 while performing his official duties. Upon perusal of the order dated 13-08-2024, the Special Judge had observed that an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act was serious in nature and when an allegation of corruption was levelled against a public servant, the foundation of trust between the public and the government officials was shaken to its core.
The Court stated that it was well cognizant of the fact that in a matter of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, the larger interest of the State must be taken into consideration. Further, a sensitive approach was required to be acquired by the Courts while dealing with the offences constituting bribery allegations against a public officer as the same minimizes the trust of the public in public servants who were duty bound to protect them. The Court further stated that while considering the allegations levelled against an accused, the Courts should, at the same time, adhere to the settle principle regarding “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”, which had been time and again emphasized by various Courts.
The Court referred to Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and stated that at this stage, it was not required to examine the evidence on record to establish the conviction of the accused, rather, it needs to delve into the aspect that whether the continued custody of the accused served any purpose for the adjudication of the matter pending before the Trial Court.
The Court stated that it was imperative to note that the case against the accused involved the offences where maximum imprisonment was up to seven years. Further, after perusal of the status report filed by the CBI, it was clear that the charge sheet in the present case was filed on 17-09-2024 and the examination with respect to the witnesses including the verification officer, trap laying officer, complainant, witnesses during the verification and trap proceedings, was completed. Therefore, the Court was of the view that the investigation with respect to the accused stands completed. The Court further stated that the accused had no criminal antecedents and there was no investigation pending against him. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused in judicial custody.
The Court stated that undoubtedly, the allegations levelled against the accused were grave and against public morale. However, at the same time, this Court was required to consider and appreciate the settled law that a bail should not be withheld as a punishment. It had been enunciated time and again that deprivation of bail must be considered as a punishment and that every man was deemed to be innocent until duly tried and proven to be guilty.
Thus, the Court granted the bail to the accused on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The Court stated that accused should surrender his passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer and under no circumstances leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court. The accused should cooperate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer of the case as and when required.
The Court further stated that the accused should remain present before the jurisdictional police station on Second and Fourth Saturday of every calendar month for the period of two months or till filing of the final report, whichever was earlier. The accused should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and should provide his mobile number(s) to the Investigating Officer and always keep it operational. Further, in case of any change of residential address and/or mobile number, the same should be intimated to the Investigating Officer/Court concerned by way of an affidavit.
[Yudhveer Singh Yadav v. CBI, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7070, decided on 08-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Sandeep Sharma, Sachin Baisla, Shivani Sharma, Nikhil Beniwal, Naresh Bhati, Mahabir Singh, Shipra Bali, Akash Gupta, Mudabbera Zaheen and Yashpriya Sahran, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Anupam S. Sharma, SPP, CBI with Prakash Diran, Harpreet Kabi, Vashisht Rao and Syamantak Modgill, Advocates.
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
