2025 (4) TMI 1346 - HC - Customs

Grant of anticipatory bail in a case for offence under Section 61 (2) of BNS and Sections 7 7A 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act - prosecution alleged that the accused a non-public servant acted as a tout facilitating bribes to public servants for clearance of import-export consignments at the Inland Container Depot Tughlakabad - HELD THAT - The RC registered by CBI specifically names the accused/applicant. I have gone through the transcripts of audio recordings of conversation between the accused/applicant and some unknown person which prima facie show his complicity in the crime. As further submitted by learned SPP custodial investigation is necessary in this case in order to ascertain the identity of the person with whom the accused/applicant was talking as depicted in the audio recordings and further even voice sample of the accused/applicant is required to be taken. Besides the explanation advanced on behalf of the accused/applicant for his not handing over his mobile phone to the Investigating Officer prima facie fails to inspire confidence. Keeping in mind the nature of offence and stage of investigation this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore the application is dismissed.

Summary

The Delhi High Court, through Justice Girish Kathpalia, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the accused/applicant charged under Section 61(2) of BNS and Sections 7, 7A, 8, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, a non-public servant, acted as a tout facilitating bribes to public servants for clearance of import-export consignments at the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad. The accused was named specifically in the CBI's RC, with audio recordings obtained via lawful phone tapping indicating his complicity. Additionally, Rs. 19,00,000/- was recovered from his premises. The accused's explanations regarding the cash (attributed to family chit fund and loans) and the non-availability of his mobile phone (claimed misplaced and non-functional) were found unconvincing. The Court emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation to identify interlocutors in the recordings and to obtain the accused's voice sample. Considering the offence's gravity and investigation stage, the Court held it "not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail," thus dismissing the application.