Jagdish Kumar Mittal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

Virender Singh, J

Applicant, Jagdish Kumar Mittal has filed the present application, under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Cr. P.C.), for releasing him, on bail, during pendency of the trial, in case No. RC0962023A0001, dated 3.1.2023, registered at Police Station, CBI, Shimla, under Sections 7 and 7­A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The applicant has sought the above relief, on the ground that the story, upon which, the case has been registered against the accused, is false, as there was an order of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi, with the rider of payment of compensation, within a period of eight weeks from the date of order and on failure to do so, 12% interest was ordered to be paid from the date of repudiation of the claim. It is the further case of applicant that the legal opinion by the lawyer was not to prefer an appeal against the order of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. These facts have been averred just to demonstrate that the story, as narrated by the complainant, is baseless.

The Insurance Company had already initiated the process to make the payment to the complainant and the amount has already been transmitted in the account of complainant, on 4.1.2023.

It is the further case of the applicant that no recovery of any incriminating article has been effected from him, even during the search conducted by the Investigating Agency, of his office/house. The applicant has been stated to be roped in on the basis of provisions of Section 7­A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Terming the story of the respondent (CBI) to be false, it has been pleaded that there is no direct evidence, connecting the applicant with the commission of offence, for which, he has been arrested, in this case. Investigation is also stated to be completed, in this case, and nothing is to be recovered, from the applicant or at his instance.

Apart from this, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, he is released on bail.

Perusal of the record shows that applicant has tried his luck before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Shimla, by moving an application bearing No. B.A. 03/2023, which has been dismissed, on 7.1.2023.

On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.

When put on notice, the respondent has filed status report, disclosing therein that on 3.1.2023, a case No.RC0962023A0001, dated 3.1.2023 has been registered with CBI, ACB, Shimla under Section 7­A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against co­accused N.S. Sidhu, Insurance Surveyor, the New India Assurance Co. Chandigarh. The said case was registered, on the complaint of one Ketan Kumar T. Prasanna. Thereafter, verification report dated 3.1.2023, was prepared, and the same was verified by Mr. Balbir Singh, Dy. S.P., CBI, ACB, Shimla Branch. The complainant, has disclosed that he and his brother, Mahesh Kumar, T. Prasanna were running an industry in the name and style of ‘M/s Savvy Go Electric Vehicles Industries’ at Plot No. 8, Industrial Area, Sector­1, Parwanoo, District Solan, from the year 2005­06 to 2010. The said industry was insured for Rs. 1.5 Crore by New India Assurance Co. It is further alleged that there was a fire incident in the said industry on 19.5.2010 and the matter was reported to the New India Assurance Co. and an insurance claim was also filed. The Company had deputed its Surveyor, Mr.N.S.Sidhu, who had submitted his survey report and New India Assurance Co. had finally rejected the claim. The complainant had approached the National Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi and the Commission had passed the order dated 7.11.2022, whereby New India Assurance Co. was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 44,17,212 with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of repudiation, till realization to the complainant therein, i.e M/s Savyy Go Electric Vehicles Industries. The said order was directed to be complied with within eight weeks, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable to ‘M/s Savyy Go Electric Vehicles Industries’.

It has been further alleged in the complaint that after passing of order dated 7.11.2022, the complainant contacted Mr. N.S. Sidhu, Insurance Surveyor, at his office situated in Chandigarh to know the process for getting the said claim. Mr. N.S. Sidhu,Surveyor, told the complainant that he will inform him after 2­3 days and that Mr. Jagdish Kumar Mittal (applicant) is well know to him and the claim will be released soon and no further appeal will be filed, in the higher Court.

On 28.12.2022, at about 12:30 p.m., the complainant received a call from Mr. N.S.Sidhu, who demanded a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/­ from the complainant, for getting the said claim amount released early, through the applicant and to prevent any appeal in higher Court. Mr. N.S.Sidhu had also informed that he had paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/­ to the applicant, on behalf of the complainant, as a token. Aggrieved with the demand of bribe by Mr. N.S.Sidhu, the complainant, made a written complaint to SP, CBI, ACB, Shimla, for taking legal action against the applicant and Mr. N.S.Sidhu, the co­ accused.

It is the further case of the respondent that during the course of verification, conversation held between the co­ accused and the complainant, was recorded. The complainant was asked by Mr. N.S.Sidhu to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ as first installment at 11 a.m., on 4.1.2023, in Chandigarh.

13 On the establishment of alleged demand, Mr. Balbir Singh, Dy.SP., CBI, ACB, Shimla, submitted his verification report and recommended to register a regular case, under Section 7­A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It is the further case of the respondent­CBI that after registration of the regular case, a trap was laid by CBI, ACB, Shimla on 4.1.2023 and the co ­accused, Mr. N.S. Sidhu was caught red­handed, while demanding and accepting bribe to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/­, from the complainant, in the presence of independent witnesses.

When the applicant was informed by the co­accused N.S. Sidhu, with regard to the receipt of bribe money from M/s Savyy Go Electric Vehicles Industries, he responded affirmatively, in the form of “good, good,good”. Thereafter, the co­accused was taken by the CBI to the office of applicant, situated at Sector­17A, Chandigarh, where he was made to confront the applicant, upon which, the latter accepted that the co­accused was taking bribe on his behalf.

After arrest of the applicant, he was produced by the Magistrate, from where, he was remanded to police custody and now he is stated to be in judicial custody.

On the basis of above facts, the prayer for bail has been opposed on the ground that applicant is member of the criminal conspiracy in the offence of demanding and accepting bribe to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/­, in this case.

The offence is also stated to be grave and heinous in nature and affecting the society at large.

Apart from this, another preliminary objection has also been taken that in case the applicant is released on bail, he may hamper the investigation of the case and he will try to influence the material witnesses and also, he may tamper with the evidence, which is yet to be collected against him.

Lastly, it is also apprehended that in case the applicant is ordered to be released, he may not be available for the trial.

On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application.

Arguments heard. File perused.

Admittedly, the applicant is in judicial custody, meaning thereby his custodial interrogation is not required by the respondent­CBI, at this stage. The role, allegedly played by the applicant, in the commission of offence, is yet to be proved, during the trial. The registration of serious and heinous offence shall not take away the presumption of innocence, which is still available to the applicant. The pre­trial punishment is prohibited under the law and bail cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment.

So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the CBI, in the status report are concerned, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed, in case the applicant is ordered to be released on bail.

The applicant is resident of Panchkula and the factum of his being physically incapacitated, has also been highlighted by learned counsel for the applicant, by placing on record the arrest memo, in column No. 9 of which, the following words have been mentioned by the Arresting Officer:

“Lame from left leg”.

The learned senior counsel, appearing for the applicant has also placed on record the photo copy of the disability certificate, disclosing therein that he is 60% disabled.

This Court is of the view that trial against the applicant will take sufficient long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody.

Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. Consequently, his bail applicationis allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond, in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/­ with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (CBI)/CJM/JMFC/Duty Magistrate, Shimla. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:

a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner, whatsoever;

c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer, and

d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

Any of the observations, made herein above, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined only to the disposal of the present application.

It is made clear that the CBI is at liberty to move an appropriate application, for cancellation of bail, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the applicant.

Applicant may produce a downloaded copy of the order passed by the Court before the trial Court and the trial Court shall not insist for the certified copy of order, rather passing of order can be verified from the web­page of this Court.