2022 (12) TMI 124 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of bail - illegal gratification - recovery from possession of accused or not - non-service of any Notice under section 41A Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - Having regards to the nature of accusation and the punishment prescribed for the same, as well as the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, more specially the period of detention, and further keeping in mind the dictum of Hon ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil 2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT , I am of the considered opinion that further custodial detention of the accused seems to be unwarranted herein this case, and it is a fit case where the privilege of bail can be extended to the accused. Thus, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees one lac) with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Chandmari, the accused be enlarged on bail - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for accused languishing in jail in connection with a corruption case registered by CBI.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The accused, a Commissioner, is arrested in connection with a corruption case involving illegal gratification demanded for a favorable order in an appeal.
2. Legal Proceedings: The accused filed a bail application citing non-compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C. before arrest and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in similar cases.
3. Arguments by Defense: The defense counsel argued for bail, emphasizing the lack of recovery from the accused and the absence of notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C.
4. CBI's Opposition: The CBI opposed the bail, highlighting the evidence collected against the accused and the ongoing investigation with one co-accused still absconding.
5. Judgment Analysis: The judge considered the duration of the accused's detention, non-compliance with legal provisions before arrest, and the seriousness of the offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
6. Legal Precedent: The judge referred to the Supreme Court's directive in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI regarding compliance with Section 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. for granting bail.
7. Decision: Considering the circumstances, the judge granted bail to the accused upon furnishing a bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, Assam.

This judgment reflects a balanced approach considering legal provisions, evidence, and the nature of the offense, ultimately leading to the decision to grant bail to the accused based on the established legal principles and the specific facts of the case.