Point of Law: Bail application cannot be rejected merely to punish accused before his trial. Pretrial punishment has been prohibited under law.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Applicant-Manish Bedi has filed the present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), for releasing him on bail, during pendency of the trial, in case No.RC0962022A0005, dated 13.12.2022, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’), with CBI, Shimla.

2. As per the factual position, the applicant has been arrested in a case under Section 7 of the PC Act. The applicant is stated to be working as Senior Tax Assistant in the Income Tax Department and posted at Parwanoo.

3. It is the case of the applicant that he is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case. The investigation, according to the applicant, has already been completed and nothing is to be recovered from him or at his instance. The applicant is also stated to be in judicial custody. According to the applicant, the trial against him will take sufficient long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in the judicial custody.

4. Apart from this, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, released on bail.

5. When put on notice, the respondent-CBI has filed the status report disclosing therein, that the present application is liable to be rejected. On the basis of decision(s) of Hon’ble Apex Court in cases titled as The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 215; Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh, AIR 2002 SC 1475; and Criminal Appeal No.861 of 2022 titled as Deepak Yadav Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 20th May, 2022, the CBI has expressed the following apprehensions, if the applicant is ordered to be released on bail:

“1. Nature and seriousness of offence.

2. Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tamper with.

3. The larger interest of the public or the state.

4. The circumstances peculiar to the accused.

5. The character of the witnesses.

6. A reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured during trial.

7. Similar other considerations which arise when a court is asked to admit accused to bail in a non bailable offence.”

6. On facts, the present application has been opposed on the ground that a case bearing No. No.RC0962022A0005 dated 13.12.2022 registered under Section 7 of the PC Act with CBI, Shimla against the applicant on the basis of the written complaint received from Sh. Ketan Kumar.

7. According to the version of the complainant-Ketan Kumar, he is running a factory i.e. M/s Dewlite Industries, Plot No.16-17, Sector 5, Parwanoo (closed now) since 2010. He has filed an application in Income Tax Office at Parwanoo for the refund of Income Tax for the financial year 2013-14 (AY 2014- 15). In this regard, he met accused-applicant Manish Bedi, who introduced himself as Inspector of Income Tax. In lieu of processing the Income Tax refund of Rs.5.00 lacs, the accused applicant Manish Bedi demanded 3% of the refund amount i.e. Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant.

8. It is further case of the CBI that after credit of the Income Tax refund in the account of the complainant, the applicant had kept on demanding Rs.15,000/- as and when he met the complainant. When the complainant had refrained from paying any bribe to the applicant, then he had allegedly warned the complainant that he will not process the refund of the Income Tax for the subsequent year. Under the compelling circumstances, the complainant had agreed to pay the bribe amount, however, being a law abiding citizen, the complainant, according the CBI has approached the authorities at Shimla with the written complaint on 12.12.2022.

9. The CBI had verified the complaint and also recorded the conversation between the applicant and the complainant and as such, the demand of Rs.15,000/- was ascertained. Not only this, according to the status report, the applicant had also