V.Balakrishnan vs. The Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, V. Balakrishnan, a Havildar in the GST office, Dindigul Division, was arrested on March 21, 2022, and remanded to judicial custody. He is accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from the defacto complainant to avoid re-opening the closed GST tax file of the complainant's deceased father. The petitioner claims innocence and alleges false implication. He was suspended from service on March 23, 2022. The prosecution contends the case is at an initial stage of investigation, and releasing the petitioner could hamper it, as they are investigating potential involvement of other officials. The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was caught red-handed in a trap case, and the allegations are serious. The Court agreed with the prosecution that releasing the petitioner at this stage would be detrimental to the ongoing investigation, which is exploring the involvement of other officials. Citing settled law that bail must be refused if there is a reasonable apprehension of evidence being tampered with, the Court found that the gravity of the charges and the fact that the investigation is in its initial phase warranted refusal of bail. The Court was not inclined to grant bail at this point. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the allegations of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, and being caught red-handed in a trap case, considering the stage of investigation? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and principles of bail). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that it was a trap case, all post-trap proceedings were completed on the date of the alleged occurrence, he is a government servant unlikely to flee, and his suspension negates the possibility of tampering with records. Respondent's arguments: The State (CBI) argued that the case is at the initial stage of investigation, releasing the petitioner would lead to tampering of records and influencing witnesses, hampering the investigation. They also stated that the investigation is exploring the involvement of other officials, and the alleged offence is serious. Therefore, bail should be refused.