IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
HITESH KUMAR SARMA, J.
Rounak Ali Hazarika — Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam — Respondent
Bail. Appl. No. 3291 of 2021
Decided on : 31-01-2022
The Court held that the petitioner, a former Deputy Inspector General of Police, was not entitled to bail in a case involving disproportionate assets and other offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other statutes. The Court found that there was prima facie evidence of the petitioner's guilt, that he had not cooperated with the investigation, and that he was an influential person who could tamper with witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice if released on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Deputy Inspector General of Police, was arrested and charged with amassing disproportionate assets, in violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and other offenses. He filed a bail application, arguing that he was entitled to bail because he had been in custody for a long time, that the charges against him were not serious, and that he would not tamper with witnesses or obstruct justice if released on bail.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was prima facie evidence of the petitioner's guilt. The Court noted that the petitioner had amassed assets worth over Rs. 1 crore, which was significantly more than his known sources of income. The Court also found that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation, and that he had attempted to influence witnesses. Additionally, the Court found that the petitioner was an influential person who could tamper with witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice if released on bail.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other statutes. 2. Whether the petitioner had amassed disproportionate assets. 3. Whether the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation. 4. Whether the petitioner was an influential person who could tamper with witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice if released on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail because there was prima facie evidence of his guilt, he had not cooperated with the investigation, and he was an influential person who could tamper with witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice if released on bail. The Court noted that the petitioner had amassed assets worth over Rs. 1 crore, which was significantly more than his known sources of income. The Court also found that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation, and that he had attempted to influence witnesses. Additionally, the Court found that the petitioner was an influential person who could tamper with witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice if released on bail.
Final Decision: The Court rejected the petitioner's bail application.
JUDGMENT :
HITESH KUMAR SARMA, J.
The Court proceedings were conducted partly through physical mode and partly through Video-Conference due to Covid-19 pandemic.
2. This is an application filed under sec. 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail of the accused -petitioner, namely, Rounak Ali Hazarika, in connection with Vigilance PS Case No. 06/2021 under Ss. 12, 13 (1)(a)(b)/13(2) of the PC Act (as amended) 1988, read with Sec. 3(c)/4(1)/5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and Sec. 120 B IPC.
3. The fact of the case, as appears from the FIR, is that on receipt of a compliant by the C.M.'s Vigilance Cell regarding disproportionate assets amassed by the petitioner, an IPS Officer, working as Deputy Inspector General of Police (Border), Assam, a preliminary enquiry and, thereafter, a regular enquiry were held, vide Case RE. No.02/2021. During the aforesaid enquiry, it was found that the petitioner had amassed moveable and immovable properties to the tune of Rs. 1,01,36,401.00 during the period from 1992 to 2021. It was found during the enquiry that the income of the petitioner along with his wife from all legal sources is to the tune of Rs. 1,74,65,529.00 approximately. It is also found during the enquiry that the petitioner had incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 3,61,18,431.00 approximately under different heads including the educational expenditure of his children, for an amount of Rs. 1,74,12,974.00. The FIR also discloses that after computation of his assets, income and expenditure, it is found that the income of the petitioner and his wife from all legal sources is approximately to the tune of Rs. 1,74,65,529.00 and expenditure is approximately to the tune of Rs. 3,61,18,431.00. Thus, his likely savings is approximately Rs.(-) 1,86,52,902.00. Against his likely saving of Rs.(-) 1,86,52.902 he possessed assets to the tune of Rs.1,01,36,401.00 approximately. Thus, he possessed disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 2,87,89,303.00 against his known sources of income. The FIR further contains an allegation that the vehicle used by the petitioner, bearing registration No.DL-8CCZ/5000 (Mercedes), is registered in the name of one Raman Kumar of Delhi, and the same is suspected to have been purchased by the petitioner under a secret agreement without changing the registration number. It has further been stated in the FIR that although the petitioner stated that his wife, being working as Financial Adviser of a Insurance Company, earns commissions, incentives, etc., but he could not provide the total amount of the income of his wife. His wife was appointed as such about 3/4 years back although the landed properties acquired by her are prior to such assignment, thereby implying that the properties in the name of the wife of the petitioner were, in-fact, purchased by the petitioner. It has also been specifically alleged in the FIR that during the period from 2019 to 2021, an amount of Rs. 3,07,33,587.95 was credited in the account of the petitioner and out of this amount, there was a cash deposit of Rs. 59,72,150/-, while he was posted at Bongaigaon. There is also findings recorded in the enquiry report, which have been stated in the FIR, that cash deposits were made in the account of the daughter of the petitioner several times by one Afroz Ahmed at the rate of Rs.2 - 3 lakhs each time, which he had received from one Farid Ali for depositing in the account of the daughter of the petitioner. There is also materials found during the enquiry to show that one Kamal Sonowal also deposited cash amount in the account of the daughter of the petitioner several times which, he stated during his examination, to be towards the repayment of the loan of Rs. 10 lakhs, which he had taken from the petitioner.
The petitioner is also alleged to have visited 9(nine) foreign countries without permission from the competent authority for which he was asked to submit detail travel history and expenses etc., which he had refused at the time of the enquiry. He has been
Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu &Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 446
Babba v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 11 SCC 569 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 118]
Harpreet Kaur v. State of Maharashtra [(1992) 2 SCC 177 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 370 : AIR 1992 SC 979
Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439
J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India
Mahesh Kumar Bhawsinghka v. State of Delhi [(2000) 9 SCC 383 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 400
Nira Radia Vs. Dheeraj Singh and Anr. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 760
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal Vs. State of Maha-rastra reported in (2013) 4 SCC 642
Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466
P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam [(1980) 3 SCC 141 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 649 : AIR 1980 SC 856
P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI reported in (2020) 13 SCC 337
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi)
R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay [(1984) 2 SCC 183 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 172
State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751
Subramaniam Swamy Vs. CBI reported in (2014) 8 SCC 682
State of M.P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar reported in (2006) 8 SCC 693
State of M.P. Vs. Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC 88.
Sukh Ram Vs. State through CBI
State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364
State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd.
Subramaniam Swamy Vs. CBI reported in (2014) 8 SCC 682
State of M.P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar reported in (2006) 8 SCC 693
Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana [(1997) 4 SCC 14 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 909
State of M.P. Vs. Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC 88
Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India [(2000) 3 SCC 409 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 659]
State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751
T.K. Gopal v. State of Karnataka [(2000) 6 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1037 : AIR 2000 SC 1669]
Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. [(2000) 9 SCC 443 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 416]
The court established that in non-bailable offenses, the presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty are paramount, and that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail is the general rule and refusal is the exception, and the court must consider the principles of bail, presumption of innocen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence, the general rule of granting bail, and the balance between individual liberty and societal interest in non-bailable o....
Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated position regarding ill effects of Socio Economic Offences and has also laid down that length of tenure in custody may not be only factor of conside....
The right to liberty of the accused must be reasonably balanced with the need for the protection of the interest of society, especially in cases of serious socio-economic offences.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.