Ashuthosh Padhy vs. Republic Of INDIA (C.B.I.)

Facts

The petitioner, arrested on December 29, 2020, sought bail from the High Court after his bail application was rejected by the Special Judge. The petitioner was implicated in FIR No.RC-10A/2020-BBS, registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, as Senior Manager of Accounts for Centurian Group of Institutions, was involved in a bribe demand of Rs. 10.00 lakh by GST officials to settle alleged violations in the institute's accounts for the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that he was solely responsible for the financial affairs of Gram Tarang Employability Training Services Private Ltd. (GTET), a separate entity, and had no knowledge of the GST audit or the alleged bribe. He argued that the allegations were fabricated, especially since no demand had been made by the GST department at the time of the alleged bribe offer, and that the Chief Financial Officer was involved in defalcation. The recovery of cash was made from a restaurant, and the petitioner claimed he was coerced into pointing to the bag.

Held

The Court decided to release the petitioner on bail. The Court considered that the petitioner had already been in custody for over a month. It noted that the offences under Sections 7A, 8, and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, carry significant punishments. However, it found that after the CBI raids and the lapse of time, the possibility of the petitioner tampering with evidence was remote, especially since the statements of witnesses to the trap and raids had already been recorded. The Court also considered that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the State and employed in the city, reducing the likelihood of him fleeing from justice. The Court did not make a definitive finding on the petitioner's guilt or innocence, as this is a bail application and the ultimate determination of facts would be at the trial. The Court's reasoning for granting bail was primarily based on the duration of custody, the stage of investigation, and the petitioner's roots in the community, rather than a detailed analysis of the evidence regarding his direct involvement in the bribe.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as Senior Manager of Accounts for Centurian Group of Institutions, was involved in the alleged demand and acceptance of a bribe by GST officials to settle GST violations, as per Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 2. Whether the petitioner's presence at the restaurant and alleged involvement in the bribe offer were voluntary or under duress and coercion, as argued by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was not involved in the GST audit or the financial affairs of Centurian Institute of Technology (CIT) concerning GST matters, as his role was limited to GTET, which had independent administration. He contended that no demand for bribe was made by GST officials at the relevant time, and the allegations were concocted to implicate him. He also highlighted the alleged defalcation by the Chief Financial Officer as a potential diversionary tactic. The petitioner relied on his limited role, the absence of direct evidence of his involvement in offering the bribe, and the alleged coercion by CBI officials. Revenue/State's Arguments: The prosecution's case, as presented in the FIR, was that the petitioner, along with the Chief Financial Officer and GST Consultant, was involved in settling GST issues with GST officials, leading to a bribe demand. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was instructed by the Trustees to facilitate the bribe payment. The recovery of cash from a restaurant and the petitioner's alleged admission of giving the bag to the GST official were central to their case.