Raju Sakthivel vs. Cbi

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. It found that the Investigating Officer had not complied with the provisions of Section 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. before arresting the petitioner, constituting a clear violation of the Supreme Court's dictum in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and subsequently in Satender Kumar Antil. The Court noted that the explanation offered by the CBI for non-compliance was unsatisfactory. The Court emphasized the Supreme Court's observation in Satender Kumar Antil that any non-compliance with Section 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. would entitle the accused to bail. Considering the nature of the accusation, the prescribed punishment, the period of detention (42 days), and the Supreme Court's pronouncements, the Court was of the considered opinion that further custodial detention of the accused was unwarranted. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance with Section 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. by the investigating agency mandates the grant of bail to the accused, irrespective of the seriousness of the offense, unless a satisfactory explanation for such non-compliance is provided.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Shri Raju Sakthivel, an accused in a CBI ACB Guwahati case registered under sections 120(B) IPC and 7/7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was lodged by Shri Chittaranjan Nath, a proprietor of Pawan Enterprise and a contractor with N.F. Railway. The petitioner, Raju Sakthivel, allegedly demanded Rs. 4,50,000/ as illegal gratification from Shri Nath for a favorable order in an appeal concerning a demand of Rs. 48,43,034/ raised by the Additional Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Dibrugarh. The petitioner was arrested on September 29, 2022, from his office as Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Central Excise and Customs, Guwahati. The CBI claims one Mahabir Jain Shyamsukha was caught red-handed accepting Rs. 3,83,000/ on behalf of the petitioner, and that investigation is ongoing with one co-accused absconding.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of non-compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C. by the arresting authority, as per the dictum of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. The petitioner argued that he was not served with a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. before his arrest, and this non-compliance entitles him to release on bail, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Satender Kumar Antil. He also pointed out that a similar non-compliance led to bail for another accused in a previous case. The petitioner further contended that nothing was recovered from his possession and his further detention was not required after 42 days in custody. The respondent CBI opposed the bail application, stating that sufficient materials were collected against the petitioner, one co-accused is absconding, and releasing the main culprit would hamper the investigation. While acknowledging the non-compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C., the CBI attempted to justify it due to the serious nature of the offense and the risk of absconding, urging the court to dismiss the petition.