Raman Kumar Aggarwal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.RC0072022A0007, registered at police station C.B.I., SPE, Dehradun under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “Act, 1988”), and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Heard Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

Opposing the bail application, Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, contended that the complainant and his wife had purchased a property in the year, 1998. Their name could not be recorded on that property. Complainant moved an application on 30.12.2019 for mutation. Co-accused – Shailendra Sharma, Office Superintendent, asked the complainant to give him an amount of Rs.50,000/-. He again met Shailendra Sharma on 14.09.2022, who directed him to meet Raman Kumar Aggarwal, Tax Clerk (present applicant). He (complainant) met the applicant who informed him that the required death certificate is not available on the record. He again met Shailendra Sharma. Co-accused Shailendra Sharma, in presence of the present applicant, again demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/-. On the request of the complainant, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.25,000/-. Co-accused – Shailendra Sharma directed the complainant to handover the said bribe amount to the present applicant. Applicant was present on the spot at that time. Applicant also provided his mobile number 9917806060 to the complainant and asked him to come along with the said bribe amount on 15.09.2022. Based on the complaint, a trap was laid on 15.09.2022. Voice of the complainant and the present applicant were recorded and applicant was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs.25,000/-. The voice recorder was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The report of the laboratory confirms the case of the prosecution. Prosecution has examined one witness in the present matter. The entire incident was captured in the C.C.T.V.

Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, contended that proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is sine qua non for establishing an offence under Section 7 of the Act, 1988. The voice recorder does not confirm the case of the prosecution that the present applicant had demanded any amount from the complainant. It is clear from the perusal of the FIR that all the allegations of demand of bribe are against the co-accused Shailendra Sharma and there is no allegation against the applicant for demanding the bribe.

Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, has further submitted that the applicant is a Government Servant. He joined the service on 22.09.2018 as Junior Assitant, Cantonment Board, Garhi Cantt, Dehradun, and there is no adverse entry against him.

Applicant is in judicial custody since 15.09.2022. Charge-sheet has already been filed and one witness of prosecution has been examined. Therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. The object of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. Applicant is a Government Servant. Therefore, there is no likelihood of applicant absconding as well. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activities.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant – Raman Kumar Aggarwal be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

(ii) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned.