Mahabir Jain Shyamsukha vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for 49 days, and a significant portion of the investigation concerning him seemed complete, reducing the risk of him tampering with evidence or witnesses. Crucially, the Court found that the arresting authority had not complied with the provisions of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C. before arresting the accused, which constitutes a violation of the Supreme Court's dictum in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar. The Court also observed that the learned Special Judge had failed to record satisfaction regarding compliance with these sections. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., the Court held that non-compliance with Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. entitles the accused to bail. Considering the nature of the accusation, the prescribed punishment, the period of detention, and the non-compliance with procedural safeguards, the Court deemed further custodial detention unwarranted and extended the privilege of bail. The petitioner was directed to furnish a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, surrender his passport, and not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Special Judge, CBI at Guwahati.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Mahabir Jain Shyamsukha, who was arrested on September 29, 2022, in connection with a CBI case registered under Section 120(B) IPC read with Sections 7/7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was lodged by Chittaranjan Nath, a proprietor of Pawan Enterprise and a contractor with N.F. Railway. Nath alleged that the Additional Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Dibrugarh, demanded Rs. 4,50,000 for a favorable order in an appeal against a service tax demand of Rs. 48,43,034. The petitioner was arrested along with Commissioner Raju Shakthivel while allegedly accepting Rs. 3,83,000 as illegal gratification. The CBI opposed bail, citing ongoing investigation and the possibility of evidence destruction. The petitioner argued for bail based on his 49 days of detention and a co-accused being granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the nature of the accusations and the period of detention? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, Mahabir Jain Shyamsukha, argued that he has been in custody for 49 days and further detention is unnecessary. He also pointed out that a co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court, suggesting parity. The petitioner contended that the material part of the investigation concerning him appears to be complete, and there is no risk of him hampering the investigation or tampering with witnesses. Respondent's (CBI) Arguments: The CBI opposed the bail application, stating that the petitioner was apprehended red-handed accepting illegal gratification. They argued that the investigation is ongoing, one co-accused is absconding, and releasing the petitioner could hinder the investigation and lead to the destruction of evidence. The CBI also raised concerns about the petitioner absconding if granted bail.