2019 (1) TMI 1499 - HC - Indian Laws

Second Bail application - Hawala transactions - illegal gratifications and the bribe money given to the aforesaid public servants - ground of parity claimed by accused-applicant - Held that - During recovery accused-applicant was found on his table where open packet containing bribe money was kept and was in open condition. The accused-applicant was fully aware about the bribe money which he was knowingly receiving, as is evident by the intercepted conversation of accused-applicant with co-accused- Aman Shah - The role of accused-applicant is distinguishable and grave, vis-a-vis other co-accused persons who have been granted bail, as the recovery of bribe money is recovered only from the possession of accused-applicant and no explanation of this possession has been given by accused-applicant - The ground of parity is not available to the accused-applicant. Apart from this the argument of the learned counsel for the accused-applicant that charge-sheet has also been filed in the matter, is also of no help to him as when the first application of bail was rejected by this Court as well as by the Hon ble Supreme Court, at that time also charge-sheet had been submitted. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions of the learned counsels and keeping in view the gravity of offence vis-a-vis material on record, without commenting upon the merits of the case, there are no good ground found to release the accused-applicant, Saurabh Pandey on bail - Bail application of the accused-applicant is accordingly rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Sections 120-B read with Section 7, 11, 12, and 13(2) R/w 13(1) (a), (b) and (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 - Second bail application - Accused-applicant's involvement in a bribery conspiracy - Recovery of bribe money from accused-applicant's possession - Grounds for bail application rejection - Parity with co-accused - Role of accused-applicant in the conspiracy - Evidence of accused-applicant's knowledge and acceptance of bribe money - Possession of bribe money - Gravity of offense - Trial court's direction for expeditious trial.

Analysis:
The accused-applicant filed a second bail application seeking release in a bribery conspiracy case under relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the accused-applicant, along with other co-accused, was involved in a scheme to collect illegal gratification. The accused-applicant was accused of accepting a bribe of ?1,50,000, recovered from his possession during a C.B.I. operation. Despite claims of changed circumstances and parity with released co-accused, the court found the accused-applicant's role grave and distinguishable. The court noted that the accused-applicant had knowledge of and accepted the bribe money, as evidenced by intercepted conversations. The recovery of bribe money solely from the accused-applicant, without a satisfactory explanation, undermined the grounds for bail based on parity with other released co-accused.

The court rejected the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the lack of substantial grounds for release. The court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial promptly. If the trial is not completed within a year, the accused-applicant could reapply for bail. The decision highlighted the importance of the accused-applicant's direct involvement in the bribery conspiracy, evidenced by the recovery of bribe money from his possession and his knowledge of the illegal transaction. The rejection of the bail application underscored the seriousness of the offense and the need for a swift trial to address the allegations against the accused-applicant effectively.

The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the prosecution's case, the accused-applicant's arguments for bail, and the circumstances surrounding the bribery conspiracy. Despite claims of changed circumstances and parity with released co-accused, the court found the accused-applicant's role and actions in the conspiracy significant and deserving of continued detention. The rejection of the bail application aimed to ensure the proper adjudication of the case and underscored the court's commitment to addressing corruption allegations promptly and effectively. The direction for an expeditious trial further emphasized the court's focus on timely justice delivery and the need to conclude proceedings efficiently to address the serious charges against the accused-applicant.