2017 (12) TMI 1033 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail application - Bribery - It is alleged that huge tax benefits were given to the assesses for which those assesses had paid huge amount by way of bribe - The petitioner is alleged to be functioning as a custodian of ill gotten money of the principal accused Sri Tapas Kumar Dutta - Held that - huge ill gotten money/cash and other evidence, which prima-facie supports the payment of bribe, has been recovered from the house of Tapas Kumar Dutta, but nothing was recovered from the other income tax officers to suggest quid pro quo. The call details also suggest that this petitioner was in regular touch with Tapas Kumar Dutta. The case of this petitioner stands on different footing to that of the other officials of the Income Tax Department, because no incriminating cash or asset was recovered/ collected from their possession to suggest that the same was bribe money and the only allegation against them is that they have reassessed the income tax files as per the observation and direction given by the main accused Tapas Kumar Dutta, while he was setting aside the original assessment orders. Thus, case of this petitioner cannot be equated with the Income Tax Officers and thus is absolutely different. Bail application rejected.

Summary

Issues: Allegations of conspiracy and bribery involving non-public servant accused.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner is accused of offenses under Section 120B & 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with a case pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi.
2. The allegations involve a conspiracy where income tax files were transferred from Kolkata to Ranchi and Hazaribagh, reassessed, and significant tax benefits given to assesses allegedly in exchange for bribes.
3. The petitioner, a non-public servant, is accused of being a custodian of illicit funds for the main accused, facilitating bribes, and operating shell companies. The charge sheet implicates the petitioner as a conduit between the main accused and businessmen involved in the scheme.
4. The defense argues the petitioner's innocence, highlighting his lack of direct association with the company mentioned in the case and emphasizing his cooperation during the investigation. They contend that the petitioner should be granted bail due to the absence of a substantial connection with the main accused.
5. The CBI asserts that the petitioner played a crucial role in the conspiracy, acting as a link between the main accused and businessmen, and facilitating the transfer of illicit funds. They present evidence of significant cash, gold, and property recovered from the main accused, suggesting a quid pro quo arrangement involving the petitioner.
6. The court notes the substantial evidence linking the petitioner to the conspiracy, including his role in managing the affairs of a company benefiting from the scheme and his financial transactions with the main accused. The court denies the petitioner's bail plea based on the strong connection established between the petitioner and the main accused, indicating a high likelihood of further incriminating evidence surfacing.

This detailed analysis highlights the complex legal issues surrounding the allegations of conspiracy and bribery involving a non-public servant accused in the case. The judgment carefully considers the evidence presented by both the defense and the prosecution to arrive at a decision denying bail to the petitioner based on the significant role attributed to him in the illicit activities under investigation.