Anil Kumar Gupta vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Facts

The applicant, Anil Kumar Gupta, filed a second bail application after his first was rejected. The case stems from a complaint by Lalchand Athwani, proprietor of M/s The World of Beauty, alleging a raid by CGST officials led by co-accused Bharat Singh. Subsequently, the complainant was taken to Raipur and met with a person identifying himself as "Commissioner Mishra" (allegedly the applicant). A tax liability of Rs. 70,00,000/- was stated, with a demand of Rs. 45,00,000/-, comprising Rs. 11,00,000/- for tax and Rs. 34,00,000/- as illegal gratification. The complainant approached the CBI, leading to a case registered under Sections 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Co-accused Vinay Rai was allegedly caught accepting a bribe of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Voice recordings and transcripts allegedly link the applicant to the demand. The prosecution alleges the applicant impersonated "Mishra @ Anil Kumar Gupta" and conspired with Bharat Singh and Vinay Rai to demand bribe.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to regular bail. The Court noted that this was a second bail application, and the earlier one was rejected on merits. It is a settled principle that a successive bail application can only be entertained upon a substantial change in circumstances, which was not demonstrated in this case. The investigation has concluded, and charge sheets have been filed. The material collected prima facie discloses the applicant's involvement in the alleged offence, specifically impersonating as the Commissioner of CGST and conspiring to extract illegal gratification. The applicant's presence at Starbucks, where bribe negotiations allegedly took place, is supported by CCTV footage and identification by witnesses. His voice sample was also obtained and relied upon. The Court found that the applicant played a central and active role in the conspiracy by projecting himself as a senior official. Furthermore, the applicant's conduct during the investigation, including evading warrants and reluctance to provide a voice sample, did not inspire confidence. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the applicant's attributed role, and the absence of new substantial change in circumstances, the Court rejected the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in light of the allegations of impersonation and conspiracy to demand illegal gratification under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, considering his earlier bail application was rejected on merits? 2. Whether there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the rejection of the applicant's previous bail application that warrants reconsideration? Contentions for the Applicant: The applicant claims innocence and false implication, asserting he is a private individual, not a public servant, and not a beneficiary of the alleged bribe. He argues the case rests on disputed electronic evidence yet to be forensically authenticated. He contends the investigation suffers from inconsistencies and procedural infirmities, with identification based on questionable CCTV footage and subsequent identification. He highlights his long period in judicial custody (since 10.07.2025) and the delay in trial commencement, citing Supreme Court judgments on speedy trial and default bail. He also points to his age, societal roots, lack of criminal antecedents, voluntary surrender, and the fact that most other accused have been granted bail. Contentions for the Non-Applicants (CBI): The prosecution argues that further investigation revealed additional facts corroborating the applicant's direct role. These include CCTV footage of the meeting at Starbucks, identification by witnesses, IPDR records showing coordination with Bharat Singh, procurement of empty estimate books, preparation of back-dated bills, and the applicant's exclusive use of a SIM card purchased in another's name, linking him to the alias "Mishra". They assert these facts, supported by bank records, IPDR analysis, CCTV, witness statements, and scientific evidence, establish his role in demanding and negotiating bribes and tampering with evidence. They also note the applicant's conduct during investigation, including evasion of warrants and reluctance to provide voice samples, does not inspire confidence.