2020 (3) TMI 41 - HC - Customs

Grant of regular bail - Bribe - question of parity - offences punishable u/s 120B IPC and section 7A of The Prevention of Corruption Act - HELD THAT - The petitioner is not entitled to parity with co-accused who have been released on bail. The petitioner in this case was dealing with the records of the firms of the complainant and he has asked for the bribe for the co-accused from the complainant alleging that the records of his firm has been seized by DRI alongwith the record of M/s Sadagati Clearing Agency Pvt, Ltd. It is alleged against the petitioner that he told the complainant that the records of 300 business firms which has been seized by the DRI included the firms i.e. M/s Anmol Tradex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Bal Gopal Importers, both firms of the complainant and record of these firms were under compilation by DRI, Ludhiana. It is also alleged against the petitioner that he has even told the complainant that action under COFEPOSA could be taken against him which can lead to search of his premises and to his arrest. The investigation reveals that the petitioner is the man who has created fear in the mind of the complainant that he would be involved in cases with DRI and COFEPOSA and after creating this terror in the mind of the complainant, the bribe amount was settled of which a sum of ₹ 25 Lakhs have been recovered from the petitioner. It is the petitioner who was the ex-clearing agent of the complainant and he is the man who had made the complainant to believe that his firms would also be under the DRI investigation and laid the foundation of this entire case. During the investigation the conversation between the complainant and the petitioner has been collected which according to the prosecution reveals that he harassed and threatened the complainant to accede to their demand in order to save himself from the investigation of DRI. The petitioner is the master mind of the case as he was well aware about the business of the complainant being his ex-clearing house agent - the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and he is not entitled to parity with his co-accused. Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving sections 7 & 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 120-B IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Allegations:
The case involves an application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, an ex-Clearing House Agency (CHA), is accused of demanding a bribe from the complainant to settle matters with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and prevent potential legal action under COFEPOSA. The petitioner, along with a co-accused, allegedly demanded and obtained a bribe of ?2.75 crores from the complainant.

2. Investigation and Arrest:
After verification, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR against the petitioner and the co-accused for offenses under section 120B IPC and section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI conducted pretrap proceedings leading to the arrest of the petitioner while accepting a bribe of ?25 lakhs at a hotel in New Delhi. The petitioner was caught red-handed, and incriminating evidence, including recorded conversations and WhatsApp chats, were collected.

3. Arguments for Bail:
The petitioner sought bail, citing the recovery of the bribe amount, obtained voice samples, and requested parity with co-accused who had been granted bail. The CBI opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, his role in creating fear and demanding bribes, and the lack of recorded conversations between the co-accused and the complainant.

4. Court's Decision:
The court dismissed the bail application, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to parity with co-accused due to the grave and serious nature of the allegations. The court highlighted the petitioner's significant role in instilling fear in the complainant, demanding bribes, and orchestrating the scheme, indicating that the petitioner was the mastermind behind the criminal activities.

5. Conclusion:
The court's decision to deny bail was based on the petitioner's integral role in the criminal activities, the severity of the allegations, and the lack of equivalence with the co-accused. The judgment underscores the petitioner's active involvement in the bribery scheme and his manipulation of the complainant to extort money, leading to the dismissal of the bail application.