Tolaram Pareek @ Aniket Pareek vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Rakesh Jangid, an Inspector of CGST, Tezpur, is accused of demanding a gratification of Rs. 5 lacs from an informant, Sudhir Chowdhury, for smooth business operations. The informant allegedly paid Rs. 2 lacs under duress and was threatened to pay the remaining amount by July 20, 2024. A trap was laid by CBI officials, and Tolaram Pareek @ Aniket Pareek was arrested on July 21, 2024, for allegedly accepting the gratification on behalf of Rakesh Jangid. Rakesh Jangid sought pre-arrest bail, while Tolaram Pareek sought regular bail. Searches at Rakesh Jangid's residences and workplace yielded no incriminating materials, except Rs. 19,000 cash at his permanent residence, which was returned to his father. No call records linked Rakesh Jangid and Tolaram Pareek.

Held

The Court considered the submissions and the Case Diary. For Tolaram Pareek @ Aniket Pareek, who had been in custody since July 21, 2024, the Court found that further custodial detention might not be necessary for the investigation's progress. He was enlarged on bail of Rs. 30,000 with one surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, refraining from alleged activities, and not leaving the court's jurisdiction without permission. For Rakesh Jangid, the Court noted incriminating materials in the Case Diary, the gravity of the allegations, and his responsible post. The Court held that granting anticipatory bail at this stage might adversely affect the investigation. Citing Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and P Chidambaram, the Court concluded that Rakesh Jangid is not entitled to bail at this juncture. The application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, for Rakesh Jangid was rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether Rakesh Jangid is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the allegations of demanding gratification and the alleged evasion of investigation? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 482 BNSS, 2023, and principles of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.). 2. Whether Tolaram Pareek @ Aniket Pareek is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given his arrest on July 21, 2024, and the length of his detention? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 483 BNSS, 2023). Petitioner's arguments (Rakesh Jangid and Tolaram Pareek): Rakesh Jangid has a good career record, and the informant is a tax evader, suggesting a concocted case. No incriminating materials were recovered from his residences or workplace. No call records link him to Tolaram Pareek. He was undergoing treatment for backache. They relied on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. The State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 1632) and P Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (AIR 2019 SC 4198) regarding the principles of anticipatory bail. Respondent's arguments (Union of India, CBI): Rakesh Jangid has been evading investigation, even when the CBI visited the hospital where he was allegedly admitted. Further custodial detention of Tolaram Pareek may not be required. Investigation would be adversely affected if both petitioners are granted bail. They relied on P Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (AIR 2019 SC 4198) and Directorate of Enforcement vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (1998) 2 SCC 105, arguing that economic offences are different and anticipatory bail is not a rule.