Abhishek Katiyar S/O Late Krishna Avtar Katiyar vs. The Union Of INDIA And Anr

Held

The Court perused the investigation papers, particularly the transcript of the alleged conversation between the applicant and the first informant, which prima facie corroborated the prosecution's case. The allegations against the applicant, a government servant, of offering a bribe to another government servant were considered serious. The applicant's admission of destroying his mobile phone after learning about the trap was a significant factor. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The application was rejected. However, to enable the applicant to approach the Supreme Court, the interim order was continued until December 9, 2025.

Facts

The applicant, Abhishek Katiyar, a Superintendent in the Central Goods and Service Tax Office, Mumbai, is seeking anticipatory bail. He is apprehending arrest in a crime registered by the CBI for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case stems from an inquiry by a GST Intelligence Officer into alleged GST evasion by offshore online betting websites. The first informant alleged that a co-accused offered to settle the issue, which was refused. Subsequently, the applicant allegedly contacted the first informant, inquired about the action against a company, and then offered ₹1 crore on behalf of the company to settle the inquiry. The applicant allegedly met the first informant in Kolkata and offered a bribe of ₹20 lakhs, with a co-accused present. The trap was laid, and co-accused were apprehended.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of offering a bribe to a government servant, as per the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contends he has been falsely implicated due to professional rivalry. His presence in Kolkata was coincidental, attending a "Musclemania Event – India Naturals Tour." He has cooperated with the investigation, and his voice samples have been recorded, negating the need for custodial interrogation. Revenue's arguments: The CBI-UOI argues that a transcript of the conversation corroborates the applicant's offer of a bribe to settle the inquiry against M/s. Appnit Technologies. The applicant does not dispute meeting the first informant. Furthermore, the applicant allegedly destroyed his mobile phone after learning about the trap, necessitating custodial interrogation. Therefore, the application should be rejected.