Back
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA
Arun Pati Tripathi S/o Lt. Sh. Prakash Pati Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through ACB/EOW – Respondent
ORDER :
Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail filed by the applicant as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.04/2024 dated 12.04.2024 (arrested on 12.04.2024) registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471 & 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2.It is the case of the applicant that he was an erstwhile Special Secretary of the Excise Department in the State of Chhattsigarh and Managing Director of M/s. Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporate Limited (CSML). He is an Indian Telecom Service (ITS) Officer of Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communication. He was working under the Government of Chhattisgarh on deputation and was relieved for joint parent department ie. Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, New Delhi on 22.12.2023. He does not have any criminal antecedents. It is alleged that in between 26.02.2020 to 01.03.2020, an attempt to harras the applicant and his family the Income Tax department carried out searc
The court emphasized that bail is not a right in cases involving serious economic offences, particularly where substantial evidence of corruption exists.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; economic offences necessitate careful consideration due to their serious implications on public interest and the economy.
The court emphasized that bail is the exception, not the rule, particularly in serious economic offences, where the risk of tampering with evidence and flight is significant.
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially in serious economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, where the gravity of charges necessitates stringent scrutiny.
In economic offences, bail is not a right; the burden rests on the applicant to show no risk of interference with justice or likelihood of guilt, reinforced by the position of the accused.
The court emphasized that bail under the PMLA requires satisfaction of twin conditions regarding the accused's guilt and likelihood of committing further offences, which were not met in this case.
The court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, due to the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence presented.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the general rule and its refusal is an exception, and that deprivation of personal liberty must be considered a form of punishment. Th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
