Point of Law : By issuing certain directions like “surrender of passport”, “issuance of look out notice”, “flight risk” can be secured. So far as “tampering with evidence” is concerned, High Court rightly held that the documents relating to the case are in the custody of the prosecuting agency, Government of India and the Court and there is no chance of the appellant tampering with evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

(Via Video Conferencing)

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No.RC2182021A0007 registered under Sections 7/8/9/10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) read with Section 120B IPC at P.S. CBI/AC-III, Delhi.

2. Mr. Amit Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant, who is a qualified Chartered Accountant (CA), was arrested on 31.12.2021, whereafter he was remanded to police custody till 08.01.2022, and ever since 09.01.2022, he is in judicial custody. It was further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the applicant’s phone was on surveillance, however no transcript of any conversation has been placed on record to back-up the allegation that the applicant was aware of the facts or involved in any other illegal activity. Rather, there is no record of any call between the applicant and the accused/Akil Ahmad, except one call which was made by the applicant at the instance of the CBI officials and another call which was received by the applicant from Akil Ahmad during the trap proceedings, after recovery of the bribe money, which is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that on 30.12.2021, when accused/Sunil Kumar Verma met the applicant to hand over the bag containing Rs.20 lacs for the accused/Akil Ahmad, the applicant had no knowledge of the nature of the transaction and/or the fact that the bag he was receiving contained payment towards bribe to Akil Ahmad. It was also urged that the case of the applicant is on a better footing than that of co-accused persons Retnakaran Sajilal, Devendra Jain and Mahim Pratap Singh Tomar, and on the same footing as that of accused/Sunil Kumar Verma, who have already been released on regular bail vide orders dated 07.01.2022, 15.01.2022 and 17.01.2022.

4. While referring to the bail rejection order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-15, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, it was submitted that the same suffers from non-application of judicious mind, inasmuch as the learned Judge made a general observation that the applicant’s conduct was unprofessional and he being a qualified/professional Chartered Accountant is supposed to guide his clients to receive only lawful payments, which should then be reflected by him in their ITRs. It was further submitted that in the transaction in question, there was no opportunity for the applicant to react or to act in accordance with his profession.

In connection with the observations made by the Trial Court on the aspect of ‘Triple test’ while rejecting bail application of the applicant, it was contended that the applicant being a professional Chartered Accountant is not a flight risk and the possibility of his tampering with evidence does not exist, as all documents/electronic records relevant to the case, including voice samples, have already been seized. It was also urged that while in custody, the applicant has co-operated in the investigation.

5. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned SPP for the CBI, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the bail application. It was submitted that the applicant has been a Chartered Accountant for the accused/Akil Ahmad as well as his wife. It was further submitted that only the co-accused persons who were involved in the process of giving of bribe have been released on bail, however, the applicant and the accused/Akil Ahmad, for whom the applicant accepted the bribe, have been denied the relief.

It was also submitted that on the day of the trap, two calls were exchanged between the applicant and the accused/Akil Ahmad. At the time of first call, the applicant stated ‘samaan mil gaya’, to which Akil Ahmad responded by saying ‘ok’. Thereafter, Akil Ahmad called back the applicant, at which time the applicant stated ‘20 lakh mil gaye’ and Akil Ahmad again replied with ‘ok’. Further, the appl