Point of Law : Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.

JUDGEMENT :

All the three bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.PC being connected and arising out of the same CBI case, the same are taken up together for common hearing and disposal. While the petitioner in BA/173/2022 is one Chintan Jain, who is not a public servant, the petitioners in the other two bail applications, namely, BA/229/2022 and BA/459/2022 are Shri Ranjit Kumar Borah and Shri Vijay Kumar Upadhyay, respectively, who are public servants. The concerned case is RC AC-12021A0011 under Section 120B of the IPC read with Sections 7/8/11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as the PC Act).

2. The petitioners were arrested on 14.12.2021 and 15.12.2021.

3. I have heard Shri KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in BA/173/2022; Shri AM Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in BA/229/2022 and Shri TJ Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in BA/459/2022. The contesting CBI is represented by its Standing Counsel, Shri SC Keyal.

4. The case registered is with regard to criminal conspiracy, demand and acceptance of bribe by public servant obtaining undue advantage without consideration by public servant. The prosecution's version is that during the year 2020-2021, Shri Ranjit Kumar Borah, who was working as the Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer/Coaching, N.F. Railway entered into a criminal conspiracy with Chintan Jain, who is connected with a Company and a Firm at Patna and had extended undue favours in connection with various contracts of the NF Railway in lieu of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. In the aforesaid manner, Shri Ranjit Kumar Borah was favoured with two numbers of immovable properties as illegal gratifications. However, on 28.10.2021, Shri Borah had demanded from Chintan Jain illegal gratification of Rs. 2.10 crores in lieu of the two immovable properties. There was also a demand for a mobile phone worth Rs. 1.3 lakhs by Shri Borah.

5. In course of the demand, various amounts were paid from time to time. On 14.12.2021, an amount was allegedly collected by one Shri Niraj Kumar, employee of Shri Chintan Jain from Shri Vijay Kumar Upadhyay, who was working as Chief Engineer (Electrical), N.F. Railway, Maligaon and was delivered to Shri RK Borah. It was at that stage, when the investigating agency had intervened and recovery of Rs. 15 lakhs (approximately) was made. Allegations of recovery of Rs. 2.12 crores (approx) from the residence of Shri Vijay Kumar Upadhyay at NOIDA is also there.

6. Both Shri Mahanta and Shri Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the two public servants have primarily submitted that their clients are entitled to default bail. By drawing the attention of this Court to the Charge Sheet, it is submitted that paragraph 16.25 would reveal that the same was filed without the investigation being complete. To substantiate the said contention, attention has also been drawn to the list of witnesses which contains 64 names whereas, the statements of only 27 numbers of witnesses were recorded. It is contended that without recording the statement of the cited witnesses, the investigation could not have been said to be complete. Shri Bora, learned Senior Counsel has been particularly critical of the investigation that the requirement of Section 7 of the PC Act, namely, demand and acceptance have not been proved. It is contended that the bail application was pending and the Charge Sheet was filed on the 58th day i.e., just two days prior to the expiry of the default period only to frustrate the operation of law under Section 167(2) of the Cr.PC. It is contended that if the rest of the witnesses were examined, the petitioners would have been entitled to default bail.

7. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that even otherwise, none of the 27 numbers of witnesses have made any implicating statements against the petitioners. It is further submitted that Sections 8 and 12 of the PC Act are not applicable.