State vs. S.K Kohli

Facts

The State filed a petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent, S.K. Kohli, an Executive Engineer with Delhi Jal Board (DJB). The bail was granted in FIR No. 05/2019, registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The State alleged the Respondent's involvement in processing bogus bills amounting to Rs. 8,03,812/- for replacement of a Metal Sheet Piece, which was allegedly not done. The Respondent was accused of recommending payment despite the work not being executed and failing to join the investigation despite notices. The State argued that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the Respondent's position and potential to tamper with evidence. The Respondent refuted these allegations, claiming the petition was mala fide and that the bail order was judiciously passed with strict conditions.

Held

The Court held that the petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail was without merit and dismissed it. Regarding the issue of the Respondent's alleged involvement in processing bogus bills, the Court noted that the work order for Rs. 8,03,812/- was issued after approval from a chain of officers, including the Superintendent Engineer, and that the Respondent, holding additional charge, forwarded the proposal. The Court found that while it was subsequently discovered that the actual work might not have been done as reflected in the bills, the evidence was primarily documentary. The Court also noted that no charge sheet had been filed despite the FIR being registered on 12.06.2018, and no application for custodial interrogation had been filed. The Court agreed with the Additional Sessions Judge that the investigation could be conducted without arrest, as the Respondent was a retired government servant with no reasonable apprehension of fleeing or tampering with evidence. The ratio decidendi is that cancellation of bail requires substantial grounds demonstrating a clear abuse of liberty or a failure to comply with bail conditions, which were not established in this case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent, S.K. Kohli, by the learned Session Judge vide Order dated 22.03.2021 in FIR No. 05/2019, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is liable for cancellation on the grounds of alleged involvement in processing bogus bills and non-cooperation with the investigation? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of evidence and the grounds for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.). The Petitioner (State) argued that the Respondent was actively involved in processing bogus bills for work that was not performed, citing his recommendation on the note sheet for payment of Rs. 8,03,812/- for replacement of an MS sheet pipe that was not actually replaced. They contended that the Respondent failed to join the investigation despite notices and that his custodial interrogation was imperative to confront him with co-accused and prevent tampering with evidence. They relied on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 694 regarding the factors to be considered for granting bail. The Respondent argued that the petition was mala fide and filed with ulterior motives, and that the bail order was passed judiciously after considering all material. He asserted that strict conditions were imposed to ensure his cooperation and that he had undertaken to join the investigation, not travel abroad, and deposit his passport. He claimed to have discharged his duties with honesty and that the allegations were not tenable.