Anil Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Anil Kumar, an employee of the Excise and Taxation Department, is accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from a complainant, Vivek Johar. The complainant alleged that the petitioner demanded the bribe for facilitating the physical verification of his firm, Tetraboll Advisors LLP, to obtain a GST number. The complainant recorded conversations with the petitioner. A regular enquiry was initiated based on the complaint. During the enquiry, it was noted that the firm's GST number was cancelled due to a lack of timely reply to a notice. The FIR was registered before the bribe was paid, and the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 CrPC, and the High Court had previously granted interim bail.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for bail. The reasoning was based on the petitioner being a first-time offender and the fact that custodial interrogation was not required. The Court noted that the alleged bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/- was not paid by the complainant. Furthermore, the petitioner had been in custody since September 6, 2023, and was granted interim bail on October 19, 2023, with compliance of the conditions. Given the period of custody and the compliance with the interim bail order, the Court found it appropriate to grant regular bail. The interim order was made absolute. No specific issue regarding GST provisions was decided as the case was primarily a bail application under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 0035 dated 06.09.2023, registered under Section 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station ACB, Gurugram, District Haryana. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner is a first-time offender and custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner has been in custody since September 6, 2023, and was granted interim bail on October 19, 2023, which has been complied with. The alleged bribe amount was not paid. Respondent's Arguments: The State of Haryana, through the Senior Deputy Advocate General, presented a reply detailing the facts of the case, including the complaint, the recorded conversations, and the subsequent cancellation of the firm's GST number.