Dismissed

Bhagwati Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation CBI

Uttarakhand HC2 May 2025BA1/2556/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Assistant Engineer in LIC caught in a CBI trap accepting part of a demanded bribe sought bail, alleging defective preliminary verification, procedural lapses in the trap, absence of demand, and non-compliance with Section 17A. The court found prima facie demand, acceptance and recovery, held Section 17A inapplicable to red-handed traps, and rejected bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bhagwati Prasad Vs Central Bureau of Investigation CBI — Corruption | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:3403

¶2

Reserved on:08.04.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

Bail Application 1^st No.2556 of 2024

¶4

Bhagwati Prasad ......Applicant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Central Bureau of Investigation …..Respondent

¶7

Presence :

¶8

Mr. Rajendra Kothiyal, Mr. Ravi Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel, for the CBI.

¶9

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

¶10

The present bail application has been moved by the applicant, Bhagwati Prasad, seeking his release in FIR/CBI Case No. RC007202024A0010, dated 09.09.2024, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI, ACB, Dehradun.

¶11

The applicant, who was posted as an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in LIC, Divisional Office, Dehradun, allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹57,000/- from the complainant, a civil contractor, in lieu of processing his pending bill and earlier cleared payments. Upon the complainant's request, the applicant agreed to reduce the bribe amount to ₹40,000/-.

¶12

A trap was subsequently laid by the CBI, during which the applicant was apprehended while accepting ₹15,000/- as part payment of the demanded bribe. The bribe money was recovered from the possession of the applicant, and the incident was captured in an audiovisual recording.

¶13

¶14

Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad….Vs……… CBI -

¶15

Ashish Naithani J.

¶16

2025:UHC:3403

¶17

It is further alleged that the pending bill of ₹22,690/- of the complainant was within the domain of the applicant for processing and approval, and the applicant was in a position to influence its clearance.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the Parties andperused the records.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire proceedings, commencing from the stage of preliminary verification, registration of the FIR, and laying of the trap, stand vitiated due to noncompliance with mandatory procedural requirements.

¶20

It is contended that, as per the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, and the binding internal procedures prescribed under the CBI Manual (Chapter 9), it is mandatory for the Supervisory Officer to record his satisfaction before ordering a preliminary inquiry. In the present case, the Supervisory Officer failed to record such satisfaction prior to directing verification, thereby rendering the entire proceedings illegal and unsustainable.

¶21

It is further urged that the trap proceedings suffer from serious procedural irregularities. It is submitted that neither the date, time, nor place of the trap was properly mentioned in the Pre-Trap Memorandum, and there was no proper briefing of the trap team, thereby violating the Standard Operating Procedures prescribed by the CBI and judicially recognised protocols.

¶22

Learned counsel emphasised that there is no clear and categorical evidence of any demand for a bribe made by the applicant. It is submitted that the recorded conversations, when read as a whole, do not disclose any direct solicitation of a bribe by the applicant. On the contrary, it is asserted that the complainant attempted to provoke the applicant, and no demand was voluntarily made by the applicant.

¶23

It is contended that the acceptance of money has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Learned counsel submitted that at the time

¶24

¶25

Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad….Vs……… CBI -

¶26

Ashish Naithani J.

¶27

2025:UHC:3403

¶28

of alleged recovery, the applicant was neither caught red-handed nor was there any independent witness present at the moment of the alleged acceptance, thus rendering the CBI’s story doubtful at its inception.

¶29

Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated on account of personal enmity. It is asserted that the complainant had monetary liabilities towards the applicant arising out of a personal loan transaction unrelated to any official duty, and in order to avoid repayment, the complainant, in collusion with the investigating agency, fabricated the instant false case.

¶30

It is urged that the investigation conducted by the CBI is biased and one-sided. It is alleged that the investigating officer ignored material evidence favouring the applicant, including the financial dealings between the parties and the communications sent by the applicant, highlighting the poor quality of work executed by the complainant's firm.

¶31

It is argued that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, namely, ‘demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act’, are not established against the applicant even prima facie.

¶32

It is further urged that the alleged recovery of bribe money from the possession of the applicant is doubtful, as the memo of recovery is stated to have been prepared in violation of mandatory safeguards, as the alleged recovery was not effected in the presence of truly independent witnesses.

¶33

Learned counsel submitted that the provisions of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandate prior approval for investigation against public servants, were not complied with before undertaking investigation against the applicant, thereby vitiating the proceedings.

¶34

¶35

Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad….Vs……… CBI -

¶36

Ashish Naithani J.

¶37

2025:UHC:3403

¶38

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has an unblemished service record of long years and has never been implicated in any criminal offence earlier. It is submitted that the applicant has deep roots in society and is not a flight risk.

¶39

Lastly, it is argued that the applicant has been languishing in judicial custody since 11.09.2024, and that further incarceration would serve no useful purpose as the evidence is documentary in nature and the investigation is complete, with the charge sheet already filed.

¶40

Learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant was apprehended red-handed while demanding and accepting bribe money from the complainant. It is contended that the trap proceedings were duly conducted in accordance with law after following the requisite procedural safeguards.

¶41

It is submitted that the preliminary verification was conducted strictly within the legal framework, and only after corroborating the allegations made in the complaint through discreetly recorded conversations, a regular case was registered against the applicant. The preliminary inquiry was not equivalent to a registration of an FIR, and the directions given for verification were lawful and proper.

¶42

Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that the demand for a bribe is clearly established from the recorded conversations between the applicant and the complainant. It is argued that during the verification exercise as well as during subsequent trap proceedings, the applicant reiterated his demand for illegal gratification and agreed to accept ₹40,000/- as bribe, reduced from an earlier demand of ₹57,000/-.

¶43

It is further contended that the acceptance of ₹15,000/- as part payment towards the demanded bribe amount was clearly captured in the audio recording. The incident was duly witnessed by independent public servants who have affirmed the recovery proceedings.

¶44

¶45

Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad….Vs……… CBI -

¶46

Ashish Naithani J.

¶47

2025:UHC:3403

¶48

Learned counsel submitted that the recovery of the tainted bribe money from the possession of the applicant was effected immediately after the trap (the money was in the Applicant’s left hand when the CBI officers entered the compound). And the trap proceedings have been thoroughly documented through pre-trap and post-trap memoranda prepared in the presence of independent witnesses, whose accounts corroborate the CBI’s version.

¶49

It is further contended that the defence raised by the applicant alleging personal financial dealings with the complainant is an afterthought, not disclosed either during trap proceedings or in the course of the initial investigation. No credible material has been brought to record to support the theory of personal loan transactions.

¶50

Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that the applicant’s reliance upon alleged procedural defects and technicalities does not dilute the core evidentiary material against him, particularly when there exists substantive evidence demonstrating demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money.

¶51

It is urged that the alleged violation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is misconceived in the present case, as no prior approval is necessary where a public servant is caught red-handed in the act of accepting illegal gratification.

¶52

Learned counsel further submitted that the offence committed by the applicant is grave and strikes at the integrity of public institutions. It is contended that considering the gravity of the offence and the possibility of the applicant influencing material witnesses, particularly the complainant who is yet to testify, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.

¶53

It is lastly submitted that the applicant is facing serious charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and his release on bail would

¶54

¶55

Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad….Vs……… CBI -

¶56

Ashish Naithani J.

¶57

2025:UHC:3403

¶58

adversely affect the fair trial of the case. Accordingly, it is prayed that the bail application be dismissed.

¶59

Before advertising to the rival contentions, it is apposite to observe that at the stage of considering an application for bail, the Court is not required to examine the entire evidence in detail or to conduct a mini-trial. The Court must assess whether a prima facie case exists against the applicant, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the overall interests of justice. The presumption of innocence, though fundamental, must be balanced against the societal interest in prosecuting grave offences, particularly those involving corruption.

¶60

The applicant has sought to challenge the very foundation of the case on the ground that the preliminary verification conducted by the CBI was irregular and lacked proper authorisation. However, on a perusal of the record, it is evident that the Supervisory Officer Sh. Sharad Singh Gusain of the CBI had directed a discreet verification prior to registration of the FIR, which is consistent with the established practice in trap cases. It is well settled that preliminary verification prior to registration of a case is permissible and, in fact, desirable in matters involving allegations of demand for illegal gratification.

¶61

The reliance placed by the applicant on alleged procedural lapses in the preliminary inquiry is misplaced. As held in State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2020) 3 SCC 474, mere irregularities in the conduct of preliminary enquiry do not, by themselves, vitiate a criminal prosecution if the subsequent investigation discloses the commission of a cognisable offence.

¶62

In the present case, the recording of conversations during verification, which prima facie corroborate the allegations, and the subsequent registration of a regular case, do not disclose any illegality

¶63

¶64

Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad….Vs……… CBI -

¶65

Ashish Naithani J.

¶66

2025:UHC:3403

¶67

fatal to the case. This Court is, therefore, not persuaded to accept the applicant's contention in this regard.

¶68

Furthermore, the heart of the CBI’s case lies in the allegation of demand and acceptance of a bribe under section 7 of PMLA. The applicant contends that he made no explicit demand and that the conversations relied upon have been misconstrued.

¶69

However, on a prima facie examination of the transcript, it appears that the applicant did reiterate the demand for illegal gratification. The applicant agreed to accept ₹40,000/- as ‘commission’, reduced from the original demand of ₹57,000/-, and insisted upon part payment of ₹15,000/-, which was subsequently received.

¶70

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, (2015) 10 SCC 152 , emphasised that the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the present case, at least at the stage of consideration for bail, sufficient material exists to indicate prima facie demand and acceptance.

¶71

The applicant has sought to assail the recovery proceedings by alleging procedural lapses and the absence of independent witnesses at the moment of acceptance.

¶72

However, the record demonstrates that the trap team included independent public witnesses. Ravi Nandan Singh and Sh. Rakesh Kumar, who has corroborated the sequence of events.

¶73

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 , observed that corruption cases must be approached with sensitivity to the larger public interest involved. At this stage, the evidentiary material satisfies the test of prima facie satisfaction.

¶74

¶75

Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad….Vs……… CBI -

¶76

Ashish Naithani J.

¶77

2025:UHC:3403

¶78

The applicant has sought to raise a defence of prior financial transactions with the complainant, suggesting that the monetary exchange was unrelated to official duties.

¶79

This defence, however, appears to have been raised for the first time during the course of bail proceedings. There is no reference to such a defence either during the trap proceedings or the initial investigation. No contemporaneous material substantiating such financial dealings of the said amount has been produced.

¶80

As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, defences which require detailed appreciation of evidence cannot ordinarily be a ground for the grant of bail in severe corruption cases.

¶81

In the considered view of this Court, the plea of personal loan is an afterthought and cannot dilute the CBI’s case at the stage of considering bail.

¶82

Additionally, in this regard, reference may be made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, (2015) 10 SCC 152 , where it was emphasised that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification constitute the sine qua non for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 , where the Court underscored the need to approach corruption cases with sensitivity to the larger public interest; and State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751 , wherein it was observed that defences requiring detailed appreciation of evidence should not ordinarily weigh at the stage of considering bail in serious corruption cases. Applying these settled principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds no ground to interfere.

¶83

¶84

Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad….Vs……… CBI -

¶85

Ashish Naithani J.

¶86

2025:UHC:3403

¶87

The applicant has also alleged that the investigation was undertaken without obtaining prior approval as mandated under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶88

This submission is noted only to be rejected. As clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vivek Batra v. CBI, (2020) 8 SCC 712 , no prior sanction under Section 17A is necessary where a public servant is caught red-handed accepting illegal gratification during trap proceedings.

¶89

In the present case, the applicant was apprehended during the commission of the offence. Hence, the protection under Section 17A is not attracted.

¶90

The offence alleged against the applicant strikes at the integrity of public institutions and undermines public trust. The allegations are serious and involve abuse of official position for personal gain.

¶91

Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , to contend that the overarching principle of law is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. It was submitted that prolonged incarceration infringes the applicant’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly when the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed.

¶92

In further support of the prayer for bail, learned counsel placed reliance on Sandeep Kumar v. State (Central Bureau of Investigation), (2023) 4 SCC 673 , and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that undue delay in trial proceedings may tilt the balance in favor of the accused, especially where custody is prolonged and evidence is largely documentary.

¶93

¶94

Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad….Vs……… CBI -

¶95

Ashish Naithani J.

¶96

2025:UHC:3403

¶97

Per contra, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted that the judgments relied upon by the applicant do not advance his case. It was urged that Satender Kumar Antil lays down broad principles of bail, but simultaneously preserves the discretion of the Court to deny bail in serious and grave offences, such as those involving corruption and breach of public trust. It was contended that Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and Sandeep Kumar themselves underscore the need for greater circumspection while granting bail in corruption cases, where societal interest weighs heavily against the release of the accused.

¶98

This Court has carefully considered the judgments cited on behalf of the applicant. In Satender Kumar Antil (supra), while the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental principles favouring the grant of bail, it also categorically held that offences involving serious economic crimes, corruption, and abuse of official position may warrant a stricter approach, depending on the facts of each case.

¶99

Similarly, the decision in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra ) emphasises that in corruption cases involving abuse of public office and large-scale misappropriation of funds, the grant of bail must be approached with great caution, keeping in view the larger public interest, the nature of the allegations, and the impact on the integrity of public administration.

¶100

And, in Sandeep Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the need for expeditious trial, held that where there is substantial material indicating the commission of serious offences, particularly those affecting public trust, the grant of bail cannot be automatic merely on account of the custody period.

¶101

Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the allegations against the applicant pertain to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification

¶102

¶103

Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad….Vs……… CBI -

¶104

Ashish Naithani J.

¶105

2025:UHC:3403

¶106

in discharge of his official duties, supported by corroborative material including recorded conversations, recovery of tainted money, and forensic confirmation. The material prima facie indicates a serious offence affecting the integrity of public institutions.

¶107

In the totality of facts and circumstances, therefore, the reliance placed by the applicant on the cited judgments does not come to his aid, and no special or mitigating circumstance exists to warrant deviation from the settled principle against the grant of bail in serious corruption cases.

¶108

In addition to the above, it would be apposite to observe that at the stage of considering bail, where prima facie material exists demonstrating the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the exercise of discretion must be approached with great circumspection. The societal interest in ensuring the integrity of public institutions must weigh against the release of an accused facing grave charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶109

ORDER

¶110

Balancing all relevant considerations — including the gravity of the allegations, the nature of material available on record, the stage of trial, the likelihood of the applicant influencing material witnesses, and the larger public interest involved, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.

¶111

Accordingly, the bail is rejected.

¶112

(Ashish Naithani J.)

02.05.2025

NR/

Bail Application No.2556 of 2024-----Bhagwati Prasad….Vs……… CBI -

¶117