Ram Lal vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

1.The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the

event of his arrest, in case FIR No. RC0962017A0008, dated 15.12.2017, under Sections 167, 193, 195, 347, 389, 384 and 511 read with Section 120B

IPC and Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 58 of the NDPS Act, Police Station CBI, ACB, Shimla, H.P.

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to

tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. Pursuant to order dated 12.05.23017 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, inquiries were conducted in complaints

so submitted by Ravi Kumar and Ramesh Chand, father of Ravi Kumar. Complainant, Ravi Kumar, has maintained a petition under Section 439

Cr.P.C. seeking his bail in case FIR No. 21 of 2016, registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., registered under Sections 20, 61 and 85

of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act) and under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On 12.05.2017 during the

hearing of the bail petition of Ravi Kumar an inquiry was ordered to be conducted upon the allegations so made by Ravi Kumar and Ramesh Chand.

Upon culmination of inquiry, including the present petitioner, the then ASI, PS Sadar, District, Mandi, H.P., three more persons i.e., Manjeet, son of

Shri Ramphal, resident of Village Diluwala, District Jind, Haryana, Pradeep Kumar, the then Cosntable, PS Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., and Jai Lal,

the then SI, PS Sadar, Distfict Mandi, H.P. were found to have done gross misconduct. Therefore, required permission from HO, CBI, New Delhi,

was taken for conducting inquiry. On 01.12.2017 a detailed status report was submitted in this Hon’ble Court and pursuant to order passed on

01.12.2017 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, FIR No. RC 0962017A2017, dated 15.12.2017, was registered against the petitioner in the CBI, ACB,

Shimla Branch. The allegations against the petitioner are precisely that he had demanded rupees twenty lac from Ravi Kumar and he threatened him

that in case he fails to pay the money, he would be implicated in a false case of Narcotics. As per the investigation, there is involvement of the

petitioner in the offence and in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility that the petitioner may influence the witnesses by

threatening or inducing them and will try to dissuade the prosecution witnesses from disclosing facts to CBI, so it is prayed that the present bail

application may be dismissed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondent (CBI) and gone through the record, including the reply of

the CBI, carefully.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution

evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. He has further argued that the petitioner has been instrumental in getting

many persons convicted while he was posted as Investigating Officer and now in order to settle score with him he has been implicated falsely by

those persons. Conversely, Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned counsel for the CBI, has argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, as the

involvement of the petitioner has been clearly found in the inquiry conducted by the CBI. He has further argued that many recoveries are yet to be

effected. There is every possibility that the petitioner may tamper with the prosecution evidence, in case he is released on bail. He has relied upon a

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered inVirupakshappa Gauda and another vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406. The

petitioner has committed a serious offence, thus the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Virupakshappa Gauda and another vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406, vide para 15, has

held as under:

“15. The Court has to keep in mind what has been stated in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. ((2004) 7 SCC 525). The requisite factors: (i) the nature

of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering

with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. In Prasants

Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (((2010) 14 SCC 496), it has been opined that while exercising the power for grant of bail, the court has to keep in

mind certain circumstances and factors. We may usefully reproduce the said passage: “9. … among other circumstances, the factors which are to

be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.â€​

At the very outset, it is seen that the petitioner has successfully investigated many cases and in many cases accused were convicted. At this

moment, this Court has considered the vital parameters for grant of bail, which have been enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Virupakshappa Gauda’s case (supra).

As far as reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence or not, is concerned, in the present case, it is a matter of

evidence. Considering the gravity of accusation, viz-a-viz other aspects of the case, which have come on record, including the sentence, which can be

awarded to the petitioner in the event of conviction, and as far as the petitioner is concerned, he is not in a position to flee from justice, as from the last

many years he is employee of Himachal Pradesh Government and nowadays he is posted at different place, this Court finds that there is subtle

possibility that he may repeat the offence and he is also not in a position to influence the witnesses. Keeping in view the overall aspects of the case

and analyzing the same with the law, as extracted above, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the

event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the

event of his arrest, in case FIR No. RC0962017A0008, dated 15.12.2017, under Sections 167, 193, 195, 347, 389, 384 and 511 read with Section 120B

IPC and Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 58 of the NDPS Act, Police Station CBI, ACB, Shimla, H.P.,

on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of `50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iii) That the petitioner will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as

to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.

7.In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.