Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Akhilesh Kumar Singh, seeks regular bail in a case registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner was present with co-accused Umesh Prasad, a Senior Intelligence Officer in the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Patna. The complainant, a partner in a gas appliances firm, ordered snacks and was subsequently demanded bribe money by Umesh Prasad. Upon payment of Rs. 10,000/-, Umesh Prasad allegedly handed the amount to the petitioner, who counted it and placed it in his pocket. When the CBI team arrived, the petitioner reportedly threw the money under the table. The investigation has concluded with a charge sheet, and the petitioner has been in custody since August 3, 2021.

Held

The Court rejected the petitioner's application for regular bail. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the material that transpired during the investigation. The reasoning for the rejection was based on the prosecution's submission that the petitioner was not only present with the co-accused but also received and counted the bribe amount. Furthermore, the petitioner's act of throwing the money under the table when the CBI team arrived was seen as evidence contradicting his claim of ignorance regarding the bribe. The Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. The petitioner was granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail after the charge has been framed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in connection with Spl. Case no. 5 of 2021, arising out of RC 7(A) of 2021, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the complainant was a business partner of Umesh Prasad and the petitioner had no involvement or knowledge of any dealings between them. No demand was made by the petitioner, and he was unaware of the transaction being a bribe. The charge sheet has been filed, and the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial. Revenue's Arguments: The Standing Counsel for the CBI opposed the bail application. They contended that the petitioner was present with Umesh Prasad, and the bribe amount was handed over to the petitioner for counting. The act of throwing the money under the table upon the CBI's arrival, as stated in the final report, falsifies the petitioner's claim of unawareness that the amount was a bribe.