Allowed

Fateh Ali v. Central Bureau of Investigatioin Th Its S P CBI Acb Officer Jammu and Another.

J&K HC2 Nov 2020Bail App/188/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was allowed. The High Court distinguished the low-value bribery case from swindling cases involving crores, held that pre-trial punishment is impermissible, and made interim bail absolute considering the applicant's health.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; interim bail vide order dated 07.10.2020 made absolute subject to conditions.

Fateh Ali Vs Central Bureau of Investigatioin Th Its S P CBI Acb… — Corruption | J&K HC (2020)

¶1

TARUN KUMAR GUPTA 2020.11.03 02:05

¶2

Sr. No. 104 Admission

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)

¶4

Bail App No. 188/2020 CrlM No. 1098/2020

¶5

Fateh Ali

¶6

.....Applicant(s)

¶7

Through :- Mr. Rahul Pant, Advocate

¶8

V/s

¶9

Central Bureau of Investigation and anr. .....Non-applicant(s) Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Advocate.

¶10

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

¶11

ORDER

¶12

01.Through the medium of the instant petition, petitioner has sought bail in case No. RC00420A0006 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, registered with the Police Station CBI (ACB), Panama Chowk, Jammu.

¶13

02.The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition are that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered on the basis of the complaint dated 28.09.2020 lodged by one Yash Paul wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was demanding bribe from him for signing the Work Register and Bill Form so as to process his case for release of payment. During the investigation of the case, a trap was laid in presence of the independent witnesses and the petitioner was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant.

¶14

Bail App No. 188/2020

¶15

¶16

03.It has been contended by the petitioner that he has been implicated in a false case by the respondents. It is further contended that investigation of the case is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. It is also urged that the petitioner is suffering from multiple ailments. It is also contended that in case the petitioner is denied the concession of bail, it would amount to injustice of penalty upon him without trial.

¶17

On the other hand, the respondents have resisted the bail application by filing reply thereto. In their reply, the respondents have contended that the petitioner has committed an economic offence and that such offences are to be treated as a class apart. According to the respondent, the investigation of the case is still at initial stage and the statements of the witnesses are yet to be recorded. The respondents have also contended that the learned trial court has rejected the bail application of the petitioner on justifiable grounds.

¶18

05.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶19

06.It is a settled law that bail is the rule whereas jail is the exception, particularly in the matters where there is no legal or statutory bar in grant of bail. In the instant case, the petitioner is alleged to have committed offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act. The said offence is neither punishable by death sentence nor imprisonment for life. Therefore, the rigor of Section 437(1) (i) Cr.PC is not applicable to this case.

¶20

Bail App No. 188/2020

¶21

¶22

07.In the case of aforesaid nature, grant of bail is within discretion of the Court. However, the said discretion is to be exercised on the basis of well recognized principles of law and the precedents. The factors that can be taken into consideration is, the nature and the gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant, the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, the stage of the investigation, the possibility of the applicants likelihood to repeat similar or other offences and the public interest.

¶23

Adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner is alleged to have

¶24

been caught red handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant. Recovery of the bribe amount has already been effected and it is not the case of the prosecution that any further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner, who has remained in custody for about ten days while he was released on interim bail. By now investigation of the case must have been taken to its logical conclusion. Therefore, further custody of the petitioner is not going to serve any purpose.

¶25

The reliance placed by the learned trial court upon the judgments referred to in its order while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner is misplaced inasmuch as the subject matter of these cases was swindling of crores of rupees. You cannot equate a case involving graft of mere Rs. 20,000/- to the cases involving alleged fraud of hundreds of crores of rupees. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases relied upon by the learned trial Court cannot be made applicable to a case of the present nature. The petitioner cannot be refused bail merely on the ground

¶26

Bail App No. 188/2020

¶27

¶28

that he is involved in an economic offence. Doing so will amount to imposition of pre-trial punishment upon him, which is impermissible in law. Even otherwise, the petitioner has placed on record documents to show that he is suffering from multiple ailments.

¶29

10.For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 07.10.2020 is made absolute subject to the conditions contained in the said order.

¶30

The petition stands disposed of.

¶31

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 02.11.2020 Tarun

Fateh Ali v. Central Bureau of Investigatioin Th Its S P CBI Acb Officer Jammu and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fateh Ali v. Central Bureau of Investigatioin Th Its S P CBI Acb Officer Jammu and Another.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanveer Ahmad Rather and Anr. Vs Union Territory through Police Station Sumbal (Home Department)

Haseem Din Vs Joginder Raj and Others.

Umesh Kumar Vs Incharge Police Station CBI and Anr.

Rita Rani Vs State Th.Home Deptt.and Ors.

Rajesh Gupta and Ors. Vs State Th.S.S.P.Vig.Org.Jammu

Shama Devi Vs Union Territory of J and K Th Dgp and Ors.