Sh. Aishwarya Attrey vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the complainant, Saurabh Mittal, did not raise the allegation of gold seizure for two months despite being represented by counsel in High Court proceedings, and the panchnama did not reflect any such seizure. The Court observed that the petitioner joined the proceedings late and that it was unlikely he could have individually removed the gold. Furthermore, the Court noted that other members of the raiding party were not implicated, suggesting the allegation might not be entirely accurate. The Court also observed that no recovery of gold had been made despite the petitioner joining the investigation. While cash of Rs. 11 lacs was recovered from the petitioner's premises, the explanation for this cash was stated to have been provided by the petitioner and could be investigated further. The Court found that no incriminating evidence pertaining to the raid was brought on record from the recoveries made from the petitioner's premises, except for the cash. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner was admitted to bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Aishwarya Attrey, a GST Inspector, seeks anticipatory bail in a CBI case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The case stems from an investigation into fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) by non-existent firms. During a search on January 25, 2022, at the premises of Yogesh Mittal and Saurabh Mittal, the petitioner joined the proceedings later. Saurabh Mittal later filed a complaint with the CBI alleging that the petitioner and other GST officers seized approximately 73 gold coins and gold bars, which were not reflected in the panchnama. The petitioner contends that he joined the proceedings late, his signatures are not on the panchnama, and the alleged seizure of gold was not recorded. He also argues that the allegations are belated and made in vengeance. The CBI opposes bail, citing the petitioner's alleged flight from his residence during a search and recovery of cash and documents from his rental premises, arguing custodial interrogation is necessary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in RC-DAI-2022-A-0012 registered under Section 7/7A/12 of the PC Act read with Section 120B IPC? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that the allegations of seizing gold are belated and not reflected in the panchnama dated January 25, 2022. He argues that he joined the search proceedings late and that it would not have been possible for him to individually remove the gold. He also submits that the complainant, Saurabh Mittal, did not raise this issue for two months despite being represented by counsel in High Court proceedings. The petitioner asserts he has cooperated with the investigation and that the allegations are a counter-allegation to the GST proceedings initiated against the complainant. Revenue's (CBI) Arguments: The CBI opposes the bail application, stating that the petitioner fled from his residence during a search and that incriminating documents, a laptop, pen drive, and cash of Rs. 11 lacs were recovered from his rental premises. They also refer to recoveries from the premises of the main accused, Mohit Dhankar. The CBI argues that the petitioner was non-cooperative and that custodial interrogation is required for the recovery of the gold.