Gurvinder Singh Sohal vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. Regarding Issue 1, the Court found sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail. The Court noted the CCTV footage of August 6, 2020, showing the complainant placing Rs. 03 Lacs in the petitioner's car, where the petitioner and co-accused were present. Further, a recorded conversation on August 10, 2020, indicated the petitioner's insistence on the fixed bribe amount, even advising against discussing money in the office. The Court also found the petitioner's presence, along with co-accused Kuldeep Hooda, at the trap location on August 14, 2020, to be proved, with the subsequent abandonment of the petitioner's car from which marked currency was recovered. The Court considered the recovery of a large unaccounted amount from co-accused Kuldeep Hooda as significant. The Court reasoned that the serious allegations and the petitioner's active involvement necessitated custodial investigation. The Court also stated that the petitioner's claim of false implication due to a GST raid was a matter of evidence to be decided at trial. The Court explicitly stated that nothing observed would have a bearing on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Gurvinder Singh Sohal, a Superintendent in the CGST office, sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Section 120-B IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI alleged that the petitioner and co-accused conducted a raid on the complainant's premises on August 6, 2020, for GST evasion. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and others demanded Rs. 12 Lacs as a bribe, settling for Rs. 09 Lacs, and that the petitioner directed him to pay Rs. 04 Lacs as part payment. The complainant allegedly placed Rs. 03 Lacs in the petitioner's car, which was captured on CCTV. A complaint was filed on August 10, 2020, leading to a trap where a spy camera recorded a conversation. On August 14, 2020, the petitioner and a co-accused allegedly came to collect the remaining Rs. 06 Lacs in the petitioner's car, which was subsequently abandoned with the marked currency recovered. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated while performing his duties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR No.RC0052020A013 registered under Section 120-B IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, considering the allegations of demanding and accepting bribe money. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated due to a raid conducted in performance of his duties concerning GST evasion. He contended that CCTV footage did not clearly show money, and the abandonment of the car by co-accused and himself was unbelievable given the alleged police presence. He also argued that no money was recovered from his house, and custodial interrogation was not required as the evidence was documentary. Respondent's (CBI) arguments: The CBI argued that there was incriminating evidence, including part payment accepted on August 6, 2020, a recorded conversation on August 10, 2020, suggesting bribe demand, and the petitioner's presence on all relevant dates. The CBI highlighted the recovery of Rs. 64 Lacs from co-accused Kuldeep Hooda and the abandonment of the petitioner's car with marked currency. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary to establish the nexus between accused and for proper investigation.