Abhay Kumar Dutta vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Central Beauro Of Investigation, Bihar, Patna.

Facts

The petitioner, Abhay Kumar Dutta, is seeking bail in a case registered under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation is that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for the continuance of a GST number. The informant complained to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, who arranged a trap and recorded a conversation. Rs. 7,000/- was paid as bribe to a co-accused, Saurav Kumar. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since February 25, 2022, and claims no recovery was made from his possession, with the sole allegation being the demand of a bribe. He also denies his voice in the digital recording and has no criminal antecedents.

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances, including the petitioner's submission that nothing was recovered from his possession, the allegation against him is solely of demanding a bribe, his denial of his voice in the digital recording, his lack of criminal antecedents, and his period of judicial custody, the Court found it appropriate to release him on bail. The operative directions included furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions that the bailors should be local with sufficient immovable property, the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and be properly represented on each date, and the bail bond may be cancelled if the petitioner tampers with evidence or witnesses. The issue of the validity of the GST number itself or the legality of the demand was not expressly decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail considering the allegations of demanding a bribe for the continuance of a GST number and the fact that he is in custody since February 25, 2022, with no recovery from his possession and denial of his voice in the digital recording? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the complaint was made on February 24, 2022, and on the same day, verification was done, a trap was laid, and the co-accused was arrested with the bribe money. Crucially, nothing was recovered from the petitioner's possession, and the only accusation is of demanding a bribe. The petitioner expressly denies his voice in the digital recording. Furthermore, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been in judicial custody for a significant period.