Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : B. Sreenivasa Gandhi Vs Inspector of Police (Telangana High Court)
Appeal Number : Criminal Petition No: 4032 of 2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 03/06/2021
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.

B. Sreenivasa Gandhi Vs Inspector of Police (Telangana High Court)

This Criminal Petition, under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1,973, is filed by the petitioner/A-1 seeking to grant bail to him in connection with F.I.R.No.RC 10 (A)/201,9, dated 08.09.2019 of C.B.I., A.C.B., Hyderabad, which was registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 109 of I.P.C

The allegations against the petitioner is that while he was working as Public Servant in different capacities such as Assistant Director of Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad and as Superintendent in Central GST, Hyderabad, during the period from 01.01.2010 to, has amassed assets in his name and in the name of his family members, which prima facie appears to be disproportionate to his known sources of income and cannot be satisfactorily accounted for. The petitioner has acquired disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.3,74,73,046/- during the check period and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner; learned Special  Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. Cases, appearing for the respondent and Perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the F.I.R. is part of a conspiracy hatched against the petitioner to destroy his career and his family. He also submits that the father and mother of the petitioner constitute a separate family and living in a different State and the respondent has purposefully roped the father of the petitioner into the case without any justification or evidence only to wreck vengeance against the petitioner. He further submits that the father of the petitioner was an employee of Indian Railways and apart from his pension, he also gets returns from investments made by him, which are purposefully not taken into consideration while calculating the assets. The wife of the petitioner is an independent business woman, having her own  modest business, whose transactions are available in the form of Income Tax returns and bank statements and she has been falsely roped into the case by the respondent. The value of the assets at the end of the check period are all cooked up without any logic or basis and the income during the check period is drastically minimized so as to inflate the values of the alleged undisclosed incomes during the check period. He further submits that the expenditure during check period has been over inflated purposefully to arrive at huge figures of alleged disproportionate assets and a glance at the figures cooked up by the respondent for the purpose of prosecuting the petitioner and his wife, given their  high incomes and in the light of Indian post liberalization economic situation, would fall on their face. It is absolutely false to state that the petitioner, his family members and relatives did not comply with the notices and did not provide information. Admittedly, the respondent raided the house of the petitioner, his parents and his sister and seized the entire documentary and other supposed evidence. Admittedly, the respondent has frozen all the accounts of the petitioner and his family members and also obtained all the bank statements and there is absolutely nothing else that can be provided by the petitioner. The respondent has collected all  information, which is necessary for the case from the employer of the petitioner and also the Income Tax Department and there is not even a single piece of information against the  petitioner that he has in possession of disproportionate assets. The allegation that the petitioner is not providing information in Form I to VI is dubious and invented for the purpose of arresting the petitioner and  retaining him in jail. The respondent has also sought for custodial interrogation of the petitioner from 01.05.2021 to 04.05.2021 and the same was granted by the learned trial Court. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be  imposed in the event of his enlargement on bail.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.


Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
July 2024