|
JUDGEMENT
SUMMERY |
|
|
Court |
High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
|
Related Act |
IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
|
Section(s) |
Section 120-B of IPC and Section 7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 |
|
Year of Order |
17/09/2020 |
|
Summery |
Section 132 of the
Central Goods and services Tax Act, 2017 section 120-B of Indian penal code,
1860, Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amended in
2018) at Police Station, CBI ACB, Chandigarh. |
CRM-M-27988-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-27988-2020
Date of
decision: September 17, 2020
Gurvinder Singh Sohal ....Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH
SANGWAN
Present:
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Kanika Ahuja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, Advocate
for the respondent-CBI.
(through video conferencing)
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Prayer
in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.RC0052020A013 dated 13.8.2020 registered under Section 120-B IPC
and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amended in
2018) at Police Station, CBI ACB, Chandigarh.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that
the petitioner is working as Superintendent in the office of Commissioner of
CGST, Rohtak. He further submits that the petitioner and the other officials,
in compliance of a public notice issued by the department that the
hand-sanitizers are taxable at 18% GST w.e.f. 1.7.2017, conducted a raid in the
1 of 8 premises of complainant Manoj Kalra and the complainant was found
evading 6% tax of GST, therefore, he was directed to pay the tax and in that process,
the complainant has falsely trapped the petitioner and the other accused.
Learned senior counsel has further argued that as per the
allegations/version of CBI, the petitioner and the other officials has raided
the premises of the complainant on 6.8.2020 and on that day, 03 other
co-employees of the petitioner, namely, Kuldeep Hooda, Superintendent; Rohit
Malik, Inspector and Pardeep Inspector pressurised the complainant to pay Rs.09
Lacs as bribe. It is further the case of the CBI that the petitioner and
co-accused demanded Rs.12 Lacs but a deal was settled for Rs.09 lacs and
complainant was directed by the petitioner to pay Rs.04 lacs as part payment of
bribe on that day. The complainant, however, handed over Rs.03 lacs in a
polythene bag by keeping the same in the car of the petitioner and this fact is
recorded in the CCTV. Later on, on the same day, the complainant received a
phone call from the petitioner, wherein he in a coded language stated "WO
SAMAAN TEEN KILO HI NIKLA HAI", meaning thereby, the amount was Rs.03 lacs
only. On this, the complainant was directed to come to the office of the
petitioner.
2 of 8 It is the further case of the CBI that since
the complainant did not want to make the payment of bribe, he made a complaint
on 10.8.2020 to the SP, CBI/ACB, Chandigarh. Accordingly, the complainant
reached the office of CBI and a trap was prepared by putting a spy camera on
the person of complainant Manoj Kalra by inserting a fresh memory card, by
putting it inside the shirt of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant
along with Chander Mohan, Director of the company went to meet the petitioner
in his office and as per the conversation between them, the complainant
requested the petitioner to reduce the amount but the petitioner stated that
whatever is fixed, it is fixed as it is to be paid to the higher officials as
well. Thereafter, the complainant came back to the office of CBI and the
transcription of the dialogues between petitioner and the complainant was made
the part of the complaint. Further with regard to demand of bribe, the
complainant was directed to reach the office of the CBI on 11.8.2020 along with
government currency of Rs.06 lacs, which was to be paid as bribe and after
preparing an inventory the complainant was asked to make a phone call to the
petitioner to inform that his work will be done on Monday. Again, on 14.8.2020
the complainant was instructed to meet the CBI officials and a trap was laid
and the petitioner, along with Kuldeep Hooda 3 of 8 came to collect the
remaining bribe of Rs.06 lacs in Creta car driven by petitioner Gurwinder Singh
Sohal, however, feeling apprehension, Kuldeep Hooda threw the said bribe money
on the rear seat of the said car and dropped from the moving vehicle and
thereafter, the petitioner abandoned his Creta car near the Mama Confectionery
Shop on Delhi Chandigarh Highway, Bahalgarh and ran away on foot. Thereafter,
the bribe money was recovered by the CBI in the presence of the independent
witnesses from the car and the currency notes were the same notes which were
marked by the CBI.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued
that, in fact, the petitioner is not previously involved in any case and has
gone to the factory of complainant to perform his duties and certain lapses
were found regarding payment of GST @ 12%, instead of 18%. Therefore, the
petitioner is falsely involved in this case. Learned senior counsel further
submit that as per the CCTV footage of 6.8.2020, the complainant is shown to be
keeping some bag, however, the money is not visible. Learned senior counsel
further argued that on 14.8.2020, as per the CBI version, there were many
police officials to trap the petitioner and Kuldeep Hooda, at the spot but it
is unbelievable that they ran away by abandoning the Creta car. Learned senior
counsel further submits that since the petitioner was not arrested at the spot,
therefore, 4 of 8 there cannot be any evidence that Rs.06 lacs were handed
over to the petitioner or co-accused Kuldeep Hooda.
Learned senior counsel further submits that the
petitioner is involved in this case only on the basis of certain inferences
that the complainant kept a polythene bag in the car on 6.8.2020 and there was
some conversation between the petitioner and the complainant on 10.8.2020 when
he visited to the office and an amount of Rs.64 lacs was recovered from
co-accused Kuldeep Hooda by raiding his house and he was arrested on 13.8.2020,
whereas nothing was recovered from the house of the petitioner when a raid was
conducted by CBI. Learned senior counsel also submits that the entire evidence
is based on documentary evidence and, therefore, the custodial interrogation is
not required.
In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the CBI has
opposed the prayer on the ground that there is incriminating evidence against
the petitioner who was directly in contact with complainant Manoj Kalara and
had accepted part payment of bribe on 6.8.2020 and, thereafter, he called the
complainant in his office. Since the complainant did not want to make the payment
of bribe, he approached the CBI and on 10.8.2020, he visited the office of CBI
and a spy camera was fixed under the shirt of the complainant in which,
conversation between him and petitioner was recorded which 5 of 8 also
suggest that the petitioner was demanding the bribe and when complainant asked
about the amount, he has stated that whatever is fixed, the complainant should
pay. It is further argued that when co-accused Kuldeep Hooda was arrested an
unaccountable amount of Rs.64 Lacs was recovered and the presence of the
petitioner on all the relevant dates, I..e. 6.8.2020 at the premises of the
complaint, on 10.8.2020 in the office of the petitioner, and on 14.8.2020 at
the place where the trap was laid is proved. Learned counsel for the CBI has
further argued that the Creta car admittedly belong to the petitioner and same
was found abandoned by him on the date when the trap was laid at Bahalgarh, on
Delhi-Chandigarh Highway and there is no explanation as to how his car reached
there. Learned counsel further submitted that the custodial interrogation of
the petitioner is necessary to find out the nexus between all the accused and
for proper investigation.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find no
ground to grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioner for the following
reasons :-
(i) As
per the CCTV footage dated 6.8.2020, the complainant was keeping a polythene
bag of Rs.03 lacs as bribe in the car of the petitioner, where the petitioner,
along with three other co- accused was present ;
6 of 8
(ii)
Again, on 10.8.2020, the complainant made a complaint to CBI, he was asked to
visit the office of the petitioner by putting a spy camera in his shirt and as
per the recording of the conversation between the petitioner and the
complainant, regarding the payment of balance amount when the complainant asked
the petitioner to reduce the amount of bribe, the petitioner replied in
negative and stated that whatever is fixed, is fixed as the amount is to be
paid to the higher officials. Even the complainant was asked not to talk much
about the payment of money in the office;
(iii)
Again, on 14.8.2020, the presence of petitioner, along with co-accused Kuleep
Hooda at the place where the CBI has planned a trap is proved from the fact
that the petitioner while driving his own Creta car reached at the spot and
after the amount of Rs.06 lacs (Marked currency notes) was handed over to
co-accused Kuldeep Hooda, he sensing some problem threw the bag on the back
seat of the car and escaped away from the moving car. Later on, the petitioner
abandoned his Cretra car near big Mama Confectionery Shop on Delhi-Chandigarh
Highway and from the car, the marked currency of Rs.06 lacs was recovered by
the CBI official in the presence of the independent witnesses;
(iv)
The argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated on account of a raid conducted by 7 of 8 him for
checking the difference of 6% GST to be paid by the complainant is a matter of
evidence; and
(v) It
is undisputed fact that co-accused Kuldeep Hooda was arrested on the next day,
i.e. 15.8.2020 and a huge unaccounted amount of Rs.64 lacs was recovered from
his house.
Therefore looking into the serious allegations against
the petitioner, which suggest his active involvement in the case, custodial
investigation of the petitioner is required.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
However, nothing observed herein will have any bearing on
the merits of the case.
(
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN )
September 17, 2020 JUDGE satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
No comments:
Post a Comment