Prof. Mukti Kanta Mishra vs. Republic Of INDIA (C.B.I.)

Facts

The Petitioner, a Founder Trustee of Centurion University and its constituent institution, Centurion Institute of Technology (CIT), sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.RC-10A/2020-BBS, registered by the CBI for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The Petitioner had left for Sydney, Australia, in October 2020 for professional activities. Following a trap laid by the CBI on December 29, 2020, the Petitioner was notified to appear for interrogation. He requested virtual interrogation due to his inability to travel immediately, offering to appear physically upon his return, but this was rejected. The Petitioner argued that the allegations of directing the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and GST Consultant to resolve GST issues with GST officials were unfounded, as these matters were handled by other appointed officials. He contended that no GST demand had been raised, and the prosecution's allegations were fabricated to humiliate him. The Petitioner also highlighted that the CFO, who was allegedly involved in the matter, was not named in the FIR, and that he himself had initiated an internal and forensic audit after discovering suspicious transactions authorized by the CFO.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. The Court noted that the Petitioner had been out of the country since October 2020 and had responded to CBI notices by expressing his difficulties in immediate travel and willingness to cooperate upon his arrival. The Court observed that no material was presented to suggest that the Petitioner's release on bail would hinder the investigation. The statements recorded from the CEO indicated that the CFO and Finance Team, along with the GST consultant, were directly managing the GST audit inquiry, and the Petitioner was aware of this. While the CEO hinted that the Petitioner had asked Ashutosh Padhy to manage interactions with the CFO and GST Consultant and to "do the needful," the CEO also stated that the Petitioner had initiated internal and forensic audits after discovering suspicious transactions authorized by the CFO. Considering the Petitioner's position as a Founder Trustee, his absence from the country, and the lack of direct incriminating material linking him to the alleged offences, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The Petitioner was directed to furnish bail bonds and cooperate with the investigation, including appearing on specified dates and informing the Investigating Officer of any travel outside the State.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner, as a Founder Trustee, can be prima facie implicated in the alleged offences under Sections 7A, 8, and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B of the IPC, given his absence from the country and the argument that financial and GST matters were handled by other designated officials. 2. Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's request for virtual interrogation, despite his offer to cooperate upon his return, indicates an intention for coercive action and humiliation. Petitioner's Arguments: - The Petitioner was abroad since October 2020 and had no knowledge of the day-to-day GST affairs, which were managed by a robust team of officials and consultants. - The allegations of directing the CFO and GST Consultant to resolve GST issues are not supported by evidence, as these officials had the authority to handle such matters. - No GST demand had been raised, and the prosecution's case regarding bribe offers is weak. - The Petitioner had initiated an internal and forensic audit upon discovering suspicious transactions by the CFO, indicating his commitment to financial propriety. - The Petitioner expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation virtually or upon his return. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or State regarding the Petitioner's involvement or the denial of virtual interrogation.