2024 (10) TMI 372 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - bribery - legality of investigation carried out - respondent agency has failed to show or indicate why the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purpose of the investigation - HELD THAT - The complainant has made a complaint about demand of bribe by petitioner-Suresh Chand Meena, GST Inspector. He has explicitly referred to a telephonic conversation in which the complainant was called by petitioner Suresh Chand Meena. The said visit is corroborated by entry No. 18 on the visitors register, as per which, complainant Surender Sharma had visited to GST office to meet petitioner at 12.00 noon. Even phone number of complainant is mentioned in the register which further corroborates the complainant s visit. Since the complainant was fed up of the demand, he made a complaint and taking advantage of secret passage in the premises and the absence of proper lighting in the said secret passage, petitioner fled away. Thus, it is a case where the petitioner is not entitled to bail. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, prima facie points towards the petitioner s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC sought by the petitioner apprehending arrest in FIR No. 07 dated 04.04.2024 at PS ACB, Faridabad.
2. Legality of investigation and need for custodial interrogation.
3. Evidence of petitioner's involvement in demand of bribe and attempt to flee.
4. Arguments regarding the timing of events and authenticity of entries.
5. Sufficiency of evidence against the petitioner for denial of bail.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC due to the FIR lodged against him for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs. 10,000. The complaint detailed the petitioner's actions in refusing a lower amount and fleeing after taking the money, supported by evidence like a recorded conversation and an inventory of the currency notes.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the investigation was unlawful and failed to justify the need for custodial interrogation. It was contended that the petitioner, being a public servant with deep roots in society, posed no flight risk or threat to tamper with evidence. The counsel emphasized that pre-trial incarceration would cause irreparable harm to the petitioner and their family.

3. The state counsel opposed bail, citing evidence of the petitioner taking bribe money and attempting to escape, as indicated by shaky movements captured on CCTV. The state argued that given the significant refunds involved in GST, officers like the petitioner must act honestly and not engage in corruption. The state maintained that there was ample evidence linking the petitioner to the bribe demand, making him ineligible for bail.

4. The petitioner's counsel raised concerns about the timing of events, alleging that entries in the FIR and general diary were manipulated to incriminate the petitioner falsely. However, the state counsel presented evidence, including the complainant's visit to the petitioner's office as recorded in the visitors' register, supporting the bribery allegations and the petitioner's attempt to evade capture.

5. Upon analyzing the arguments and evidence presented, the court found that the complainant's detailed complaint, supported by recorded conversations and the petitioner's attempt to escape, indicated a strong case against the petitioner. The court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to bail based on the prima facie evidence of his involvement in the bribery scheme.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, recalling any interim orders and disposing of pending applications. The judgment refrained from expressing an opinion on the case's merits, emphasizing that the observations made should not influence the trial court's proceedings.