Avinash Dnyaneshwar Gawde vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's continued custodial detention appeared unwarranted. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in jail for 56 days since his arrest on October 4, 2022. It was also observed that a sum of Rs. 3,83,000 was recovered from a co-accused, allegedly received on behalf of Raju Shakthivel. Furthermore, some co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. The Court found that the material part of the investigation concerning the present accused seemed to be completed, and there appeared to be no chance of him hampering the investigation or tampering with witnesses. The apprehension of absconding expressed by the CBI was considered unsubstantiated. The Court also noted compliance with Section 41A of the CrPC and the petitioner's appearance before the Investigating Officer. Considering the period of detention, the nature of the accusation, and the submissions of both sides, the Court concluded that the privilege of bail could be extended to the accused.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Avinash Dnyaneshwar Gawde, who has been in jail since October 4, 2022, in connection with a case registered under Section 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 7/7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was lodged on September 14, 2022, by Chittaranjan Nath, a proprietor of Pawan Enterprise and a contractor with N.F. Railway. The dispute arose when the Additional Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Dibrugarh, raised a demand of Rs. 48,43,034. Following an appeal against this adjudication order, the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Central Excise Customs, Guwahati, Shri Raju Shakthivel, allegedly demanded Rs. 4,50,000 through conduits for a favorable order. The CBI registered a case, laid a trap, and arrested Raju Shakthivel and the present accused, Mahabir Jain Shyamsukha (referred to as the accused in the judgment). The petitioner contends that his further detention is unnecessary as some co-accused have been granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's continued custodial detention is warranted, considering his period of detention and the stage of investigation, under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.? The petitioner argued that he has been in jail for 56 days, some co-accused have been granted bail, and the material part of the investigation concerning him appears to be completed, thus his further detention is not required and he should be enlarged on bail. The respondent CBI opposed the bail application, contending that the investigation is ongoing, one co-accused is absconding, and releasing the petitioner might lead to destruction of evidence or tampering with witnesses, thus the petition should be dismissed.