2021 (7) TMI 1268 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Bribe - huge amount was due towards the P.F. Fund of the Employees which had not been deposited by the complainant - applicant was posted as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner at Regional Office EPFO, Noida - HELD THAT - Perusal of the record shows that after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter on 12.10.2020. Cognizance has also been taken. Applicant has not appeared before the court concerned. Process of bailable and non-bailable warrant were issued on different dates against the applicant. Inspite of this, he did not appear. Although co-accused Narendra Kumar and Brijesh Ranjan have been allowed on regular bail, yet keeping in view the conduct of the applicant and process going on against the applicant, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail particularly when applicant was posted as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in the concerned Office and allegation of bribe amounting to ₹ 9 lacs was being raised in the matter and same amount has also been recovered from the possession of the co-accused. The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

Summary

Issues: Application for anticipatory bail in a corruption case involving an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.

Analysis:
The applicant, an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, filed an anticipatory bail application in a corruption case under sections 120-B IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant denied the allegations, stating they were false, and emphasized his cooperation with the investigating agency. The applicant argued that no prima facie case was made out against him and referred to the bail order of a co-accused who was granted regular bail. The applicant expressed willingness to cooperate and highlighted the pending non-bailable warrant against him, expressing fear of imminent arrest. The C.B.I. contended that the applicant was the main perpetrator, present during the alleged crime, and had pressured the complainant to pay a bribe. The C.B.I. cited the submission of a chargesheet and issuance of warrants against the applicant, emphasizing his non-appearance before the court and lack of cooperation. Referring to legal precedent, the C.B.I. argued against granting anticipatory bail based on the applicant's conduct.

Upon considering the arguments and reviewing the record, the Court noted the submission of the chargesheet, the issuance of warrants against the applicant, and his failure to appear before the court. Despite co-accused individuals being granted regular bail, the Court found the applicant's conduct and the seriousness of the allegations, including the recovery of a significant amount from a co-accused, as reasons to reject the anticipatory bail application. The Court concluded that given the nature of the allegations, the position held by the applicant, and the conduct displayed, it was not a suitable case for granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, the criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application was rejected.