9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chandigarh. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is working as Superintendent in the office of Commissioner of CGST, Rohtak. He further submits that the petitioner and the other officials, in compliance of a public notice issued by the department that the hand-sanitizers are taxable at 18% GST w.e.f. 1.7.2017, conducted a raid in the premises of complainant Manoj Kalra and the complainant was found evading 6% tax of GST, therefore, he was directed to pay the tax and in that process, the complainant has falsely trapped the petitioner and the other accused. Learned senior counsel has further argued that as per the allegations/version of CBI, the petitioner and the other officials has raided the premises o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the petitioner to reduce the amount but the petitioner stated that whatever is fixed, it is fixed as it is to be paid to the higher officials as well. Thereafter, the complainant came back to the office of CBI and the transcription of the dialogues between petitioner and the complainant was made the part of the complaint. Further with regard to demand of bribe, the complainant was directed to reach the office of the CBI on 11.8.2020 along with government currency of Rs. 06 lacs, which was to be paid as bribe and after preparing an inventory the complainant was asked to make a phone call to the petitioner to inform that his work will be done on Monday. Again, on 14.8.2020 the complainant was instructed to meet the CBI officials and a trap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Rs. 06 lacs were handed over to the petitioner or co-accused Kuldeep Hooda. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner is involved in this case only on the basis of certain inferences that the complainant kept a polythene bag in the car on 6.8.2020 and there was some conversation between the petitioner and the complainant on 10.8.2020 when he visited to the office and an amount of Rs. 64 lacs was recovered from co-accused Kuldeep Hooda by raiding his house and he was arrested on 13.8.2020, whereas nothing was recovered from the house of the petitioner when a raid was conducted by CBI. Learned senior counsel also submits that the entire evidence is based on documentary evidence and, therefore, the custodial interrogat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the nexus between all the accused and for proper investigation. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find no ground to grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioner for the following reasons :- (i) As per the CCTV footage dated 6.8.2020, the complainant was keeping a polythene bag of Rs. 03 lacs as bribe in the car of the petitioner, where the petitioner, along with three other coaccused was present ; (ii) Again, on 10.8.2020, the complainant made a complaint to CBI, he was asked to visit the office of the petitioner by putting a spy camera in his shirt and as per the recording of the conversation between the petitioner and the complainant, regarding the payment of balance amount when the complainant asked the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
