Mamta Rana vs. Central Bureau Of Investgation

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The Court noted that while Rs. 5,000/- was recovered from the applicant's purse and Rs. 5,000/- from a colleague's cabin, there was no recovery of the Rs. 4,90,000/- bribe amount from the applicant or the co-accused. This lack of corroborative material for the substantial bribe amount, coupled with the fact that no prosecution witness had been examined despite the applicant being in jail for over a year and a half, weighed heavily on the Court's decision. The Court emphasized that speedy trial is a legal right and that the offense, while serious, was not considered heinous. The Court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail, considering the facts, circumstances, complicity, and the delay in trial. The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties, with conditions to cooperate with the trial, not tamper with evidence, and not involve in criminal activity. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial court's independent decision.

Facts

The applicant, Mamta Rana, a Superintendent with CGST, is accused of demanding and accepting bribes from Deepak Sahoo, MD of M/s Edward AM Pvt. Ltd. The FIR alleges that Rana and co-accused Prashant Jain demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- for a favorable inspection report, later reduced to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The complainant claims to have paid Rs. 4,90,000/- in cash on June 12, 2023, and was threatened with business closure if the remaining Rs. 10,000/- was not paid. The CBI trap resulted in the recovery of Rs. 5,000/- from Rana's purse and Rs. 5,000/- from the cabin of a colleague, Dinesh Kumar Meena. The prosecution case is that the original Panchnama showing irregularities was torn and replaced with a new one. The applicant sought bail, arguing that the prosecution's story is false due to the missing original Panchnama and lack of evidence for the Rs. 4,90,000/- bribe. The applicant has been in jail since June 19, 2023, and no prosecution witnesses have been examined.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant has made out a case for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the alleged delay in trial and the nature of the evidence? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the prosecution's story is false because the original Panchnama, which allegedly showed irregularities, is not on record. They contended there is no evidence of the Rs. 4,90,000/- bribe being paid to the applicant, except for the complainant's oral allegation. It was also argued that the investigation was not fair, as the contents of telephonic conversations in the verification report differed from those in the charge sheet. Furthermore, since the new Panchnama showed no irregularities, there was no occasion for the remaining bribe amount to be demanded. The applicant has been falsely implicated, poses no flight risk, will not tamper with evidence, and has cooperated with the investigation. The trial has not commenced with any prosecution witness being examined. Revenue's arguments: The CBI counsel opposed the bail application, reiterating the prosecution's case that the accused tore the original Panchnama and prepared a new one to conceal irregularities after receiving the bribe. They maintained that the applicant, in collusion with the co-accused, extracted illegal money, and Rs. 10,000/- of the bribe amount was recovered.