Suresh Chand Meena vs. Anti Corruption Bureau Faridabad And Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Suresh Chand Meena, a GST Inspector, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. He apprehended arrest in FIR No. 07 dated 04.04.2024, registered at ACB, Faridabad, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was based on a complaint by Surender Kumar, who alleged that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for issuing a GST number for his firm. The complainant stated his GST application was rejected multiple times, and the petitioner demanded money. The petitioner claimed no criminal antecedents. The respondent agency filed a reply detailing the complaint and evidence, including a recorded conversation and an inventory prepared after the petitioner allegedly fled with the bribe money. The petitioner argued the investigation was unlawful and custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The State opposed bail, citing evidence of bribe demand and the petitioner's alleged attempt to flee.

Held

The Court held that the complainant's allegations regarding the demand for a bribe by the petitioner, Suresh Chand Meena, a GST Inspector, were supported by evidence. The petitioner's telephonic conversation with the complainant was explicitly mentioned, and the visit to the GST office by the complainant at 12:00 noon on 04.04.2024 was corroborated by entry No. 18 in the visitor's register, which also included the complainant's phone number. The Court noted that the complainant, fed up with the demand, filed a complaint. The petitioner allegedly fled using a secret passage in the premises, taking advantage of the absence of proper lighting, which indicated he was not entitled to bail. A perusal of the bail petition and attached documents prima facie pointed towards the petitioner's involvement, and a case for bail was not made out. The Court refrained from further discussion to avoid prejudicing the petitioner. The petition was dismissed, and interim orders were recalled.

Key Issues

1. Whether the investigation conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) is lawful and illegal, warranting anticipatory bail for the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, concerning the investigation process and the petitioner's right to liberty). 2. Whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation? 3. Whether the petitioner, being a public servant with deep roots in society, poses a flight risk or is likely to tamper with evidence, thus disentitling him to anticipatory bail? Petitioner's Contentions: The investigation is unlawful and illegal. Custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner has deep roots in society, poses no flight risk, and will not tamper with evidence. Further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice. The petitioner also argued that the FIR and related entries were made ante-time, suggesting concoction. Respondent's Contentions: There is evidence of the petitioner taking bribe money and attempting to flee. Given the large amounts of GST refunds, it is crucial that officers dealing with GST act honestly. There is sufficient evidence connecting the petitioner to the demand for a bribe. The petitioner was present in the office, and the complainant's visit is corroborated by the visitor's register. The petitioner allegedly fled with the currency notes, which are yet to be recovered.