Pradip Kumar Acharya vs. Republic Of INDIA (Cbi)

Facts

The Petitioner, a Superintendent in GST, Central Excise and Custom, Bhubaneswar, sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. He was arrested on December 29, 2020, in connection with FIR No. RC-10A/2020-BBS, registered by the CBI under Sections 7A, 8, and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B of the IPC. The Petitioner's bail application was previously rejected by the Special Judge, CBI Court No.1, Bhubaneswar. The Petitioner argued he was not involved in demanding or accepting bribes, had no authority to settle GST issues, and his name did not appear in the FIR. He also contended that nothing was recovered from him and he had no discussions with the Institute regarding GST issues. The prosecution alleged the Petitioner was part of an audit team that detected GST violations, leading to a demand for a Rs. 10.00 lakh bribe, of which the Petitioner was to receive a share. The investigation was ongoing.

Held

The Court granted bail to the Petitioner. While acknowledging the prosecution's case that the Petitioner was a member of the GST audit team that identified violations, the Court noted that the Petitioner was not directly attributed with communicating with the Institute about these violations or demanding illegal gratification. The FIR indicated that accused A.B. Kar was the one who demanded the bribe. No documents were presented by the CBI to support any instructions given by the Petitioner to anyone connected with the Institute. The recovery of Rs. 10.00 lakh was made from accused A.B. Kar. The Court considered that the Petitioner had been in custody for over a month, and given the lapse of time and the completion of raids, the apprehension of tampering with evidence was minimal. The Petitioner's status as a permanent resident and government employee also reduced the risk of him fleeing. The Court applied the principles for granting bail, emphasizing the need to avoid elaborate examination of evidence at this stage and focusing on the prima facie case, gravity of the charge, and other relevant factors. The Petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of like sum, with conditions to cooperate with the investigation, not influence witnesses, and not leave the country without court permission.

Key Issues

1. Whether there is a prima facie case against the Petitioner for the offences under Sections 7A, 8, and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B of the IPC, warranting his continued detention? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that he was not directly involved in the demand or acceptance of the bribe. He asserted that he had no authority to settle GST issues, which required higher official approval. He highlighted that his name was not explicitly mentioned in the FIR, and the primary role in demanding the bribe was attributed to another accused, A.B. Kar. The Petitioner also contended that no recovery was made from him, and there was no evidence of him discussing the settlement of GST issues with the Institute. He further submitted that he had been in custody for over a month, was a permanent resident, and posed no flight risk or threat of tampering with evidence. Revenue's (CBI) Arguments: The Revenue contended that the Petitioner, as a Superintendent of GST and a member of the audit team, could not claim ignorance of the bribe demand and subsequent events. They argued that the Petitioner was aware of the violations and the subsequent bribe demand of Rs. 10.00 lakh, of which he was to receive a share. The Revenue also stated that the investigation was ongoing and more evidence was likely to be unearthed. They relied on Supreme Court decisions in B. Noha Vrs. State of Kerala & Others, State Rep. by Inspector Vrs. A. Parthiban, and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vrs. CBI.