Varun Choudhary vs UT Of J&K And Others

Sanjay Dhar, J

1 The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in case FIR No.RC0042024A0002 dated 26.03.2024 registered with Police Station CBI, ACB, Jammu for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2 It is averred in the application that the petitioner has been involved in a false trap case and has been taken into custody on 26.03.2024. It has been further contended that on the very next day i.e on 27.03.2024, the respondent-Investigating Agency did not even ask for custody of the petitioner and, accordingly, he was sent to judicial custody, but in spite of this, the Court of learned Special Judge Anticorruption (CBI Cases), Jammu (‘Special Judge’ for short) has rejected the bail application of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner is suffering from severe asthama and even otherwise, no purpose is going to be served by keeping the petitioner in custody as the investigation of the case is almost complete.

3 The respondent-Investigating Agency has contested the bail application by contending that the investigation of the case is at a crucial stage and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may influence the witnesses. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has been caught red handed while demanding and accepting a sum of Rs.9000 from the complainant and that he has committed a heinous offence. It has been further submitted that the petitioner, who was posted as Patwari at village Nanga, demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/- through co-accused Dayal Chand and it is on account of these serious allegations against the petitioner that the learned Special Judge has rejected his bail application.

4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

5 As per the prosecution case, the petitioner, who was posted as Patwari, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant, who paid an amount of Rs.9000/- to the co-accused for its onward transmission to the petitioner. In the process, the co-accused was caught red handed when a trap was laid by the respondent-Investigating Agency.

6 The petitioner has been in custody for the last more than one month and it is an admitted fact that while making an application for remand of the petitioner before the Special Judge, the respondent-Investigating Agency did not ask for his custody meaning thereby that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not needed by the Investigating Agency. So far as the bribe amount is concerned, the same has already been recovered by the Investigating Agency and it has not even been claimed by the respondent-Investigating Agency that any further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Thus, further incarceration of the petitioner in custody is not going to serve any fruitful purpose.

7 The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is involved in a heinous economic offence, which is a class apart, is also without any merit for the reason that the magnitude of the alleged crime stated to have been committed by the petitioner is not of such a nature as would involve large scale investigation which is generally required in cases relating to embezzlement, tampering of documents and forgery etc. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he has demanded bribe from the complainant. The tainted money already stands recovered from the co-accused. It is not the case of the respondents that any seizure or search is to be conducted by them to unearth any conspiracy as is generally associated with cases involving financial scams. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner cannot be equated with an economic offence of large magnitude which calls for detailed investigation including search and seizure of materials from different persons stationed at different locations.

8 Denying bail to the petitioner on the ground that he is involved in an economic offence in a case of instant nature would amount to inflicting punishment upon him without trial which is not permissible in law. Despite evolution of law relating to bail over the last several decades, the golden principle that ‘bail is the rule and jail is an exception’ still continues to hold good. Unless there are exceptional circumstances to deny bail in cases where there is no legal or statutory bar to grant of bail, the same cannot refused as a measure of punishment.

9 The trial Courts should eschew their tendency to deny bail as a measure of punishment to the accused even in cases where further incarceration of the accused is not going to serve any purpose. Unfortunately, the learned Special Judge, in the present case has, it seems, been swayed by the fact that there is apprehension of petitioner’s jumping the bail without there being any material to support such observation.

10 For the foregoing reasons, it appears that the petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail in his favour. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to the following conditions:

(i) That he shall furnish personal bond in the amount of Rs.50,000/ with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

(ii) That he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when required;

(iii) That he shall not leave the territorial limits of Union Territory of J&K without prior permission of the Investigating Officer;

(iv) That he shall surrender his passport, if any, before the Investigating Officer;

(v) That he shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses/evidence;

(vi) That he shall not indulge in similar activities;

The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.