Anil Kumar Gupta vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Facts

The applicant, Anil Kumar Gupta, is seeking bail in a case registered by the CBI for offences under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleges that on January 28-29, 2025, Bharat Singh, a CGST Superintendent, along with Vinay Rai and the applicant (impersonating as Commissioner Mishra), raided the complainant's shop and demanded a bribe of Rs. 34 lakhs, in addition to Rs. 11 lakhs as tax. The complainant alleged that Vinay Rai was caught red-handed accepting Rs. 5 lakhs. The CBI obtained voice recordings of conversations between the complainant, Vinay Rai, and the applicant. The applicant claims innocence, stating he is a private entity and the evidence is circumstantial, including CCTV footage and voice recordings, which he argues are not substantial evidence. He also points to the inclusion of more public servants in the charge sheet as a potential delay tactic.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail. The Court found that the applicant is alleged to have impersonated himself as the Commissioner of CGST, adopting the alias 'Mishraji', and hatched a conspiracy with co-accused Bharat Singh and Vinay Rai. The Court noted that one co-accused, Vinay Rai, was caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The bail applications of co-accused Bharat Singh and Vinay Rai were rejected by this Court, and a Special Leave Petition filed by Bharat Singh was also rejected by the Apex Court. The Court found that the investigation has concluded with the filing of charge sheets, and the prosecution has prima facie established the applicant's guilt. The applicant's presence at the Starbucks Coffee Shop, where bribe negotiations occurred, is evident from video footage and his identification by the complainant and other witnesses. His voice sample has also been identified. The Court considered the applicant to be the prime conspirator, introducing himself as the Commissioner and orchestrating the crime. Furthermore, the applicant's conduct, including evading notices and a non-bailable warrant, and his reluctance to provide a voice sample during police custody, were deemed unacceptable. Given the evidence, the identification, the CCTV footage, the rejection of bail for co-accused, and the applicant's conduct, the Court concluded that this is not a fit case for granting bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Anil Kumar Gupta, is entitled to be released on bail given the prima facie evidence against him for impersonating a CGST Commissioner and conspiring to extort bribe money, as alleged by the prosecution? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contends that he is innocent and falsely implicated. He argues that he is a private entity and his alleged role as a facilitator through impersonation is false. He claims he was not a recipient of the bribe and the evidence, including sound tracks and CCTV footage, is not substantial or conclusive. He further argues that the identification process was faulty and conducted with ulterior motives. The applicant also suggests that the investigation is dubious and based on suspicion, surmises, and conjectures. He highlights the inclusion of more public servants in the supplementary charge sheet, which may delay trial proceedings. Respondent's arguments: The CBI argues that the FIR was registered based on a credible complaint, and a trap was laid where co-accused Vinay Rai was caught red-handed accepting a bribe. The prosecution asserts that voice recordings and CCTV footage corroborate the applicant's involvement, including his presence at Starbucks where bribe negotiations took place and his impersonation as 'Commissioner Mishra'. The CBI also points to the rejection of bail applications by co-accused Bharat Singh and Vinay Rai by this Court and the Apex Court, respectively, as indicative of the strength of the prosecution's case.