Bharat Singh vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The applicant, Bharat Singh, a Superintendent in Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST), Raipur, is seeking a second bail application after his first was rejected on merits. The prosecution alleges that on January 28-29, 2025, the applicant conducted a raid at the shop of Lalchand Athwani and, in conspiracy with co-accused Vinay and Mishra, demanded a bribe of ₹34,00,000 to settle GST liability, later reduced to ₹10,00,000. The complainant filed a complaint with the CBI on January 30, 2025. An FIR was registered on January 31, 2025, under Section 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Co-accused Vinay Rai was apprehended with bribe money. The applicant claims innocence, stating he was a team member acting under directions and that his role was different from the team leader. He highlights that several co-accused, including the team leader, have been granted bail, and a supplementary charge sheet filed on September 6, 2025, allegedly lacks evidence against him.

Held

The Court held that the applicant, Bharat Singh, is not entitled to regular bail. This is his second bail application, and his first bail application was dismissed on merits by the High Court, followed by the dismissal of his Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the Supreme Court, while granting bail to co-accused Vinay Rai, specifically observed that the present applicant's bail had already been rejected and that the facts and circumstances concerning the role and status of Vinay Rai differed significantly from those of the applicant. The Court found that the distinction in the nature of participation, involvement, and role in the offence was expressly noted, justifying a different approach. Therefore, the Court concluded that no sufficient or compelling grounds existed to justify the grant of bail to the applicant. The Court found the applicant's active involvement in the offence, the prior dismissal of his earlier bail applications, and the distinction in facts regarding the co-accused to be decisive. Consequently, the second bail application was liable to be rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Bharat Singh, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his active participation in the alleged offence and the prior rejection of his bail applications. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant (Bharat Singh): Argues that there has been a significant change in circumstances since the rejection of his earlier bail application and SLP. He contends that similarly placed co-accused, including the main officer and team leader of the raid, Shri Subrato Pal, and others, have been granted bail on the principle of parity. He asserts that the supplementary final report does not disclose evidence against him, and transcripts do not indicate his involvement in demanding or accepting bribes. He also highlights his long period of incarceration (over one year) and the dependence of his ailing mother on him. Non-Applicant/Union of India: Opposes the bail application, emphasizing that the applicant's first bail application was dismissed on merits by the High Court, and his subsequent Special Leave Petition (SLP) was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The prosecution argues that the applicant actively participated and played a significant role in the offence. They refer to the Supreme Court's observation while granting bail to co-accused Vinay Rai, noting that the applicant's bail had already been rejected and the facts and circumstances differed significantly.