9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1417 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of anticipatory bail - corruption and bribery - prosecution s case is that proposal for enhancement of the tender amount was not made according to the guidelines by the Competent Authority in such type of matters - relevance and admissibility of evidence - HELD THAT - Although the petitioner was not named in the FIR but the investigation revealed that he had also put his signatures on the proposal to enhance the building to green and in-turn he had received bribe of Rs. 5 lacs from the complainant through co-accused Rambir. By such enhancement petitioner in connivance with other officials of Municipal Corporation Sonipat wanted to give undue benefit to Lalit Mittal in violation of guidelines/norms/policies dated 12.12.2018. In addition to that there were irregularities in the technicalities and proposal which was pointed out in technical report dated 13.02.2023. Because of the unethical conduct of the complainant the petitioner who was discharging official functions and holding the post of Electrical Engineer indulged in corrupt criminal practices and enriched himself knowingly that even if the money was not paid to the contractor he had nothing to lose. In this manner he acted as a cheat which is also why an offence under Section 420 IPC read with 120 B IPC had already been incorporated in the FIR. Given the nature of allegations custodial interrogation is required. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal 1987 (3) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT Supreme Court holds A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest. Conclusion - The petitioner failed to establish a case for anticipatory bail given the allegations and the necessity for custodial interrogation. The petitioner fails to make a case for anticipatory bail - petition dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The Court considered the following core legal issues:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Entitlement to Anticipatory Bail The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, arguing that he was falsely implicated and had no role in the alleged corruption. The legal framework for anticipatory bail requires the court to consider the seriousness of the allegations, the possibility of the accused tampering with evidence, and the need for custodial interrogation. The Court referred to several precedents, including State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, which emphasizes the societal impact of economic offences, and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, which highlights the gravity of economic offences and the need for a different approach in granting bail. The Court concluded that the nature of the allegations and the evidence collected warranted custodial interrogation, thus denying anticipatory bail. 2. Admissibility and Relevance of Evidence The Court examined the disclosure statements made by co-accused during the investigation. The petitioner argued that these statements should not be relied upon as they were confessions made to the police and not admissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court agreed that such statements are not confessions under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act or Section 164 CrPC, and therefore, did not rely on them for its decision. However, the Court considered other evidence, including the petitioner's involvement in signing the proposal for the enhancement of the contract and the alleged receipt of a bribe of Rs. 5 lacs, which corroborated the allegations against him. 3. Necessity of Custodial Interrogation The Court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in cases involving economic offences. Citing State rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, the Court noted that custodial interrogation is more effective in eliciting information and uncovering concealed evidence. The Court found that the allegations against the petitioner were grave, involving a conspiracy to enhance contract amounts illegally, and thus required custodial interrogation to ensure a thorough investigation. 4. Application of Judicial Precedents The Court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, which outline the parameters for granting anticipatory bail in serious offences. These precedents stress the need to balance individual liberty with societal interests, particularly in cases involving corruption and economic offences. The Court concluded that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for anticipatory bail as established by these precedents, given the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact on public trust and governance. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that:
The Court determined that the petitioner failed to establish a case for anticipatory bail, given the allegations and the necessity for custodial interrogation. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed, and the interim orders were vacated.
|
