Krishan Kumar vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Facts

The petitioner, Krishan Kumar, a Sub Inspector of Police, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.RC0052023A0028 dated 06.10.2023, registered by the CBI, ACB, Chandigarh. The FIR alleged that the petitioner and a co-accused demanded and received illegal gratification of ₹2.50 lacs from a complainant to help the complainant's brother, who was accused in a GST case. The petitioner allegedly absconded with the bribe money after the trap was laid, while the co-accused was apprehended. The petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the learned trial court.

Held

The Court held that there were specific and serious allegations against the petitioner in the FIR. The petitioner, a Sub Inspector of Police, along with a co-accused, allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹2.50 lacs to help the complainant's brother in a GST case. The petitioner allegedly absconded with the bribe money after the trap was laid, while the co-accused was caught. The Court found that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessitated for a fair investigation. Therefore, the Court concurred with the respondent's submissions and found no grounds to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of demanding and receiving illegal gratification and absconding with the tainted money, as per Section 120-B IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and ready to cooperate with the investigation. He contended that the learned trial court wrongly denied him anticipatory bail. Respondent's (CBI) contention: The CBI opposed the bail, stating that a specific complaint was made against the petitioner and co-accused for demanding bribe money related to a GST case. They argued that the petitioner, a police official, fled with the bribe money after its acceptance. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary for investigation and recovery of the tainted money. They also submitted that the petitioner might hinder the investigation if granted bail.