Amol Dhondu Medhekar vs. The Central Bureau Of Investigation

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail. The Court noted that the FIR was registered on September 14, 2022, and co-accused had already been arrested. While the applicant had been granted interim protection on November 7, 2022, and had appeared before the Investigating Officer, the Court found that he had not cooperated with the investigating agency, as contended by the CBI. The Court also found that the applicant was the person who had demanded the bribe money from the complainant and was identified by the complainant during a Test Identification Parade (TIP). Furthermore, the applicant had allegedly used a forged identity card to hide his original identity. Considering the applicant's role, his non-cooperation, and the materials collected in the case diary, the Court was of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation was necessary and that this was not a fit case for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The interim order was vacated, and the petition was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, Amol Dhondu Medhekar, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with a CBI case registered under Section 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 7/7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case originated from an FIR lodged by a contractor of N.F. Railway who had submitted bills for construction work. The Additional Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Dibrugarh, had raised a demand of Rs. 48,43,034/-, which the contractor believed was not payable. The contractor appealed this order before the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Central Excise Customs, Guwahati. In August 2022, the Commissioner, Raju Shakthivel, allegedly demanded Rs. 4,50,000/-, approximately 10% of the service tax demand, through intermediaries for a favorable order. The CBI arrested Raju Shakthivel and another individual, Mahabir Jain Shyamsukha, who was allegedly caught accepting illegal gratification on Shakthivel's behalf. The petitioner is accused of acting as a mediator, demanding the bribe, and directing the complainant to pay Hawala agents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of his involvement as a mediator in demanding and facilitating the payment of a bribe, and his alleged non-cooperation with the investigating agency? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he had been granted interim pre-arrest bail by the Court, had cooperated with the investigating agency by appearing on several occasions, and that his further custodial detention was not required. He sought to make the interim order absolute. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent CBI opposed the petition, stating that the applicant had not cooperated with the investigation despite appearing before the Investigating Officer. They alleged that the applicant acted as a mediator, demanded the bribe on behalf of the accused Raju Shakthivel, and directed the complainant to pay bribe money to Hawala agents. The CBI also claimed that vital documents were yet to be seized, the investigation was ongoing, and one accused was absconding, necessitating custodial interrogation.