Pradeep Kumar Gupta @ Sonu vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Ankit Aswal, have filed applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail. Pradeep Kumar Gupta is not a public servant, while Ankit Aswal is an Inspector of GST. The FIR, RCJDH2024A 0001/2024, was registered with CBI/ACB/Jodhpur for offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioners have been in custody since January 9, 2024. The prosecution alleges demand of illegal gratification, and an amount was allegedly recovered from Pradeep Kumar Gupta. The investigation is ongoing and is expected to take considerable time, followed by the need for prosecution sanction.
Held
The Court allowed the bail applications. The reasoning was based on the fact that the investigation is likely to take a considerable amount of time, and thereafter, the department would have to wait for prosecution sanction. The Court found no reasonable ground to allow further incarceration of the petitioners. It was also noted that there is a high probability that the trial may take a long time to conclude. Consequently, the Court deemed it suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners. The operative direction was that the accused-petitioners shall be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge.
Key Issues
1. Whether the accused-petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., considering the alleged offences under Section 120-B of IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act? Arguments for the Petitioners: The petitioners contended that no case is made out against them, and their continued incarceration is unwarranted. They argued that they have been implicated based on conjectures and surmises, and there are no factors that would preclude them from being granted bail. Arguments for the Respondent: The respondent (Union of India through CBI) opposed the bail applications, submitting that the present case is not fit for enlarging the accused on bail. They did not specify any particular authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 120-B, Section 7
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 05/03/2024
The juri iction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case
[2024:RJ-JD:11034] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1156/2024]
FIR Number RCJDH2024A 0001/2024
Concerned Police Station CBI/ACB/Jodhpur
District Jodhpur
Offences alleged in the FIR Section 120-B of IPC and Section 7 of PC Act
Offences added, if any 6. Date of passing of impugned order (In CRLMB No. 1156/2024) 24.01.2024
Date of passing of impugned order (In CRLMB No. 1702/2024) 25.01.2024
It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.
Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
I Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The petitioner - Pradeep Kumar is not a public servant and the petitioner – Ankit Aswal is inspector of GST. There are allegations of demanding illegal gratification and it is the case of the prosecution that the amount was recovered from Pradeep Kumar is behind the bars since 09.01.2024. The investigation would likely to take a further long time and
[2024:RJ-JD:11034] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1156/2024] whereafter the department would have to wait for prosecution sanction. There is no reasonable ground to allow their further incarceration. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the present matter.
Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused- petitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to them to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (FARJAND ALI),J 41, 53.Samvedana/-
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.