Sahil Ratusaria vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Cbi

Facts

The petitioner, Sahil Ratusaria, sought regular bail in connection with RC Case No. 02(A)/2025-R, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018. The case originated from a complaint by Pawan Kumar Dubey and Amod Kumar Pandey, partners of M/S Amod Kumar Pandey, who were undertaking repair works at M.H. Building. They alleged that their bill of approximately Rs. 27 Lakhs was pending release due to a demand for 2% bribe, amounting to Rs. 54,000/-. The CBI verified the complaint, registered an FIR, and conducted a trap on March 19, 2025. The petitioner was apprehended for allegedly directing the complainants to pay Rs. 40,500/- to Philip Xalxo, the cashier, on his behalf. Subsequently, Rs. 40,500/- was recovered, and a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and Philip Xalxo under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of the BNS 2023.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. It noted that the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court observed that no bribe money was recovered from the physical and conscious possession of the petitioner. While the co-accused, Philip Xalxo, admitted to receiving the bribe money at the petitioner's behest, the court found nothing substantial against the petitioner beyond this statement. Regarding the recovery of Rs. 79.50 lakhs from the petitioner's garage, the court noted that the charge sheet did not mention any acquisition of assets related to this cash recovery, and scrutiny of seized documents was still in progress. Furthermore, a perusal of the conversation transcript indicated that the petitioner had not handled cash from the complainants, but rather directed them to the cashier for bill-related matters, including TDS and GST. Considering the period of custody (since March 20, 2025), the submission of the charge sheet, and the absence of bribe money in the petitioner's conscious possession, the court concluded that the bail application deserved to be allowed. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to cooperating in the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Sections 483 and 484 of the B.N.S.S. given the allegations of demanding and facilitating the acceptance of a bribe. Petitioner's arguments: - The petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated. - The alleged bribe amount was not recovered from the petitioner's conscious and constructive possession. - The informants conspired to take revenge due to the petitioner's insistence on quality work and timely completion, citing a slow progress letter and show cause notice issued to their firm. - No case under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out when money was neither demanded nor recovered from the petitioner's conscious possession. - The charge sheet has been submitted, and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. - The petitioner has been in judicial custody since March 20, 2025, and further detention would amount to punishment without trial. - The petitioner satisfies the 'TRIPLE TEST' for bail (unblemished life, societal integration, willingness to comply with conditions). Revenue/State's (CBI) arguments: - The petitioner demanded Rs. 54,000/- as a bribe for clearing bills. - Co-accused Philip Xalxo confessed, under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., to receiving the money at the petitioner's behest. - Rs. 79.50 lakhs cash was recovered from the petitioner's garage during a house search, and scrutiny of seized documents is ongoing to ascertain disproportionate assets.