Dinesh Kumar vs Superintendent of Police CBI and Another

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the applicant and Sri U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate/Standing Counsel for the CBI assisted by Sri Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the opposite party No. 1.

In brief, the prosecution case is that complainant J.C. Punetha moved an application before the SP CBI, Dehradun on 28.12.2009 with the averments that he runs a cloth shop at Lohaghat. In October 2007, a raid was conducted in his shop by the Income Tax Department and thereafter he received notices and in that context, he used to come Income Tax Office, Pithoragarh. On 25.12.2009, he along with his C.A. Mahesh Joshi and Advocate Jagdish Gadkoti, was called for enquiry by the present applicant, who was the I.T. Officer, Pithoragarh and Lohaghat also came under his jurisdiction. On that day, the applicant demanded Rs. 50,000/- as bribe from the complainant in lieu of the fact that he benefited the complainant for Rs.2.70 lacs. The complainant requested the applicant to reduce the amount of bribe, but he did not agree. The complaint also got a C.D. prepared about the said conversation between him and the present applicant which he submitted along with the application. It was also prayed that the complainant did not want to pay Rs. 50,000/- as bribe and prayed for necessary legal action.

On the said application, an enquiry was conducted and the verification report was filed by A.K. Singh Inspector of CBI on 29.12.2009 in which a regular case against the present applicant was recommended to be registered u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter to be referred as the Act]. After that the trap was organized and the present applicant was caught red handed on the spot by the team of CBI headed by Tej Prakash, Inspector CBI in presence of shadow witness R.S. Bisht and other independent witness Sanjay Kumar while demanding and accepting Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant J.C. Punetha.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant/ accused argued that the Assessment Order in question was passed on 23.12.2009 while the trap was conducted on 29.12.2009, hence there was no occasion for the applicant to receive the bribe. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for CBI argued that the Assessment Order annexed with the bail application is not the part of the official file recovered during the trap and the applicant deliberately had not signed the assessment order and withheld the same. He further submitted that the applicant/accused had forced the complainant to pay the bribe to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- because as per the own admission of the applicant, he had benefited the complainant to a tune of Rs. 2.70 lacs and the said facts have been recorded during the conversation just before the applicant/accused had been caught red handed. The same facts have been stated in paras 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit.

It was next argued on behalf of the applicant that the presence of Inspector Tej Singh at the time of trap is not possible. On the contrary, learned senior counsel appearing for CBI argued that the team of CBI had been camping at Pithoragarh on 28.12.2009 and on the said date, the complainant moved the application before the Camping Team at Pithoragarh and the same was communicated to the office of SPE, CBI Dehradun through FAX and the S.P. CBI on the very date ordered to verify the contents as well as genuineness of the complaint on the same day and the said order had been communicated to the team camping at Pithoragarh through FAX on 28.12.2009. He further submitted that the Inspector A.K. Singh, who was present at Pithoragarh, had submitted the verification report on 29.12.2009 in compliance of the order-dated 28.12.2009 passed by the SP CBI. It is further argued that the Inspector Tej Pal who had been authorized to lay the trap was in Pithoragarh on 29.12.2009 and it is wrong to say that he was camping at Haldwani on the relevant date and time. He further submitted that the said inspector Tej Pal Singh left the Haldwani on 28.12.2009 at about 12 noon and he reached at Pithoragarh before the trap and soon after receiving the order from the SP, CBI, formalities of the trap had been initiated. The same facts have also been stated in paras 7, 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the CBI. He further argued that when the applicant/accused was caught red handed and when his house was searched, in the subsequent investigation, disproportionate assets worth Rs. 27,57,831/- which is about 200% disproportionate to his known sources of income as well as Rs. 9.50 lacs in cash, were found which the applicant had not been able to explain satisfactorily. He further submitted that apart from the present case, an FIR No. RC0072010A 0002 dated 25.1.2010 has been registered against the present applicant in which the investigation is in progress and the applicant had also been taken into custody in the aforesaid crime u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Act on 16.4.2010 and at present he is in jail in the present crime as well as in the FIR No. RC0072010A 0002 dated 25.1.2010 u/s 13 r/w 13(1)(e) of the Act. These facts have also been stated in para 4 of the counter affidavit.

After considering all the facts and circumstances, on hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the contents of the FIR, recovery memo of the case, particularly considering the gravity of the offence that the applicant, being a public servant, demanded Rs. 50,000/- as illegal gratification for benefiting the complainant to a tune of Rs. 2.70 lacs; that the applicant is also in jail in another case in FIR No. RC0072010A 0002 dated 25.1.2010; that the cash worth Rs. 9.50 lacs as well as assets amounting to Rs. 27,57,831/- which is about 200% disproportionate to his known sources of income and that he was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification of Rs. 50,000/-, I do not find that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is also rejected.