2012 (11) TMI 953 - HC - Central Excise

Grant of bail - criminal case - Prevention of Corruption Act alleged that Commissioner and Superintendent of Central Excise were involved in obtaining illegal gratification by corrupt and illegal means from the businessmen Held that - there was a clear well-designed and planed conspiracy to conduct illegal raid on the business premises of Aggarwals. This conspiracy was hatched by all the accused persons/petitioners. There is prima facie evidence on record in the shape of statements of Mr. S.K. Singh that the raid was illegal and unauthorized. Though the transcript of taped conversation cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence, but having seen the transcript of the conversation that took place between the accused persons/petitioners before and after the raid, it would be prima facie seen that it was all planned to extort money from Aggarwals under the fear of raid The arrest of Srivastava would be nothing but extension of trap arrest. Prima facie Section 6A(2) was attracted and this being a non obstante section, provisions of sub-section (1) mandating approval of the Central Government were not applicable. The petitioners A.K. Srivastava and Lallan Ojha are senior officers of the Central Excise Department. Most of the witnesses who have been cited by the prosecution are officials of their department and some of the officials cited as witnesses are their juniors and subordinates. It is every likelihood that in case they are released on bail, they would be able to influence the witnesses. This is presumably because of this apprehension that the prosecution has chosen to get the statements of two drivers and one Superintendent recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC before the Magistrate. The apprehension of CBI in this regard seems to be well founded in the given facts and position of these two petitioners. The pleas that the petitioners are in custody for about three months now and the charge-sheet has been filed are also no ground to admit them on bail. - bail applications dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.PC read with Section 482 Cr.PC.
2. Allegations of illegal gratification under Sections 7, 8, 10, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC.
3. Unauthorized raid and conspiracy.
4. Applicability of Section 6A(1) of Delhi Police Establishment Act.
5. Medical grounds for bail.
6. Parity in granting bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Bail under Section 439 Cr.PC read with Section 482 Cr.PC:
The petitioners sought bail in a criminal case involving allegations of corruption. The court considered the nature of the allegations, the evidence presented, and the potential influence the petitioners could exert on witnesses if released on bail. The court emphasized the seriousness of economic offenses involving public officials and the need to view such offenses gravely due to their impact on public trust and the economy.

2. Allegations of Illegal Gratification:
The petitioners were implicated in a scheme involving illegal gratification. Hemant Gandhi acted as a middleman for Dr. A.K. Srivastava and Lallan Ojha, who were accused of demanding and accepting bribes from businessmen following an unauthorized raid. The court noted the prima facie evidence, including statements under Section 164 Cr.PC, which confirmed the illegal activities and the acceptance of bribe money by the petitioners.

3. Unauthorized Raid and Conspiracy:
The court found that the raid conducted on the business premises of Dalip Aggarwal and Anand Aggarwal was unauthorized and part of a conspiracy hatched by the petitioners. The evidence included statements from officials and recorded conversations that indicated a well-planned scheme to extort money. The court highlighted the illegal nature of the raid and the subsequent demand for bribes.

4. Applicability of Section 6A(1) of Delhi Police Establishment Act:
A.K. Srivastava argued that his prosecution was barred under Section 6A(1) due to his position as a Joint Secretary. However, the court found that Section 6A(2) applied since the case involved a trap and direct evidence of bribery. The court distinguished this case from R.R. Kishore, noting that the arrest of Srivastava was an extension of the trap, and thus, no prior approval from the Central Government was required.

5. Medical Grounds for Bail:
A.K. Srivastava sought bail on medical grounds, citing heart ailments. The court noted that he was receiving adequate medical treatment in jail, and his condition was reported as stable by AIIMS. The court emphasized that the provision of necessary medical care in jail negated the need for bail on medical grounds.

6. Parity in Granting Bail:
Hemant Gandhi argued for bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Dalip Aggarwal and Anand Aggarwal, who had been granted bail. The court rejected this argument, stating that the roles of the petitioners and the Aggarwals were not comparable. The Aggarwals were considered victims of circumstances, while Gandhi was actively involved in the conspiracy and acceptance of bribes.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all three bail applications, emphasizing the gravity of the offenses, the prima facie evidence of conspiracy and bribery, and the potential influence the petitioners could exert on witnesses. The court found no merit in the arguments related to Section 6A(1), medical grounds, or parity for bail. The decision underscores the judiciary's stance on corruption and the need to maintain public trust in the integrity of public officials.

← Previous Next →