Case Law Details
Gurvinder Singh Sohal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Special CBI Court, Panchkula)
As per the prima facie case of the prosecution, applicant- accused along with co-accused demanded bribe/undue advantage of Rs.9 lacs from the complainant on 06.08.2020 and accepted Rs.3 lacs as part payment of bribe on 06.08.2020 and further demanded and accepted remaining bribe amount of Rs.6 lacs from the complainant on 14.08.2020. It is also case of the prosecution that the relevant CCTV footage dated 06.08.2020 of the factory of the complainant also reflects that complainant had put the polythene containing part payment of bribe of Rs.3 lacs in the small hand bag and the said bag was kept by the complainant in the vehicle of applicant-accused Gurvinder Singh Sohal. Accused Kuldeep Hooda and present applicant Gurvinder Singh Sohal are alleged to have demanded and accepted the remaining bribe amount of Rs.6 lacs on 14.08.2020 in moving Creta vehicle, but the accused after getting apprehensive, abandoned the vehicle and the bribe amount as well as the vehicle were recovered and taken in possession by the CBI in the presence of independent witnesses and applicant-accused is absconding since 14.08.2020. Applicant-accused along with co-accused demanded huge bribe amount from the complainant and there are also recorded conversations indicating prima facie active involvement of applicant-accused in the alleged offences and therefore custodial interrogation of applicant-accused is very much necessary in the interest of investigation. No public servant can be allowed to behave and act as an extortionist. The menace of corruption is eating into the vitals of our society and the same needs to be dealt with sternly. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances and in the light of allegations against the applicant-accused, this Court of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary power of granting anticipatory bail to the applicant-accused. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, present bail application of applicant-accused, namely, Gurvinder Singh Sohal for grant of anticipatory bail, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Papers be attached with FIR/remand papers.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. Applicant-accused Gurvinder Singh Sohal has sought anticipatory bail in case RC No. RC0052020A0013 dated 13.08.2020, under Sections 120 IPC and under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), Police Station CBI, ACB, Chandigarh.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused vehemently argued that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the complainant, as applicant had conducted search at the factory premises of the complainant and had found deficiencies in the goods and services tax paid by him and thus the complainant was nursing a grudge on account of the same. It is further contended that applicant along with three other officials was deputed to search the premises of the complainant and accordingly on 06.08.2020, the applicant along with three other officials went to the factory premises of the complainant and complainant had made the differential duty of 6% on 06.08.2020 and as per procedure, the officials of Commissioner, CGST have to put up the file for approval and closure of the investigation to the Commissioner, CGST for other directions and orders, if any and thus the applicant had nothing to do when the complaint had paid the diffrential amount and the applicant had no role to play after search had been concluded. It is further contended that there is no demand on the part of present applicant as per the complaint and the applicant was neither apprehended at the spot nor anything was recovered from him, which prima facie make out innocence of the applicant. It is contended that as per CBI case, co-accused Kuldeep Hooda was arrested from his house and the alleged bribe money was recovered from him and on 15.08.2020, the CBI raided the house of the applicant, but nothing incriminating was found there. It is also submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence, which is already in the possession of the CBI and the CCTV footage, conversations etc. allegedly recorded, are also in the possession of the CBI and nothing further is to be recovered from the applicant. It is further submitted that liberty of an individual is a sacred and fundamental right and the person should not be deprived of the same unless there are compelling reasons and it is not imperative to arrest the accused if an FIR has been registered. In order to substantiate his submissions, reliance has been place upon Joginder Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1349; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetra Vs State of Maharashtra 2011 (1) SCC 694; Ashok Kumar Vs State of Haryana CRM-M-7096 of 2016 decided on 26.02.2016 by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. It is further submitted that applicant is ready and willing to associate with the investigation and fully cooperate with the investigating agency and since applicant is respectable person, so there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding the process of law and no useful purpose would be served by sending the applicant-accused behind the bars. Accordingly prayer has been made to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant-accused.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
