Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Mohan Lal, J.
Sajjad Ahmed – Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigations through SP CBI ACB, Jammu & Anr. – Respondents
B.A. No. 53 of 2023
Decided On : 31-03-2023
Bail - Prevention of Corruption Act - 7 of PC Act 1988 r/w 120-B IPC - 41-A of Cr.P.C - D.K. Basu v. State of W.B - Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar - Sanjay Chandra v. CBI - Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra - P. Chidambaram v. CBI/ED - State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathy - Sudha Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. - Jagdish Kumar & Ors. v. State & Ors. - Naresh Singh v. State of J&K - Mohd. Razak & Anr. v. State of J&K & Anr. - P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation - Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar - ANUJ GUPTA-Petitioner v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION-Respondent - Umesh Kumar v. Incharge Police Station CBI & Anr. - Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy - Avneesh Kumar Gupta v. CBI - Darbara Singh v. Union Territory of J&K - The court granted bail to the accused, Sajad Ahmed, Chief Accounts Officer JKTDC, who was arrested for alleged demand and acceptance of bribe, based on the principles of bail, presumption of innocence, and the severity of the punishment. The court considered the nature and gravity of the charge, the danger of the accused absconding, the character and behavior of the accused, the likelihood of the offence being repeated, the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, and the danger of the justice being thwarted by the grant of bail. The court imposed conditions on the accused to ensure that he does not influence the prosecution witnesses or leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without permission.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, Sajad Ahmed, Chief Accounts Officer JKTDC, was arrested for alleged demand and acceptance of bribe. The court analyzed the bail application, objections filed by the respondent/CBI, and relevant case laws to consider the factors for granting or refusing bail in a non-bailable case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a prima facie case against the accused, but considered the principles of bail, presumption of innocence, and the severity of the punishment. The court also assessed the nature and gravity of the charge, the danger of the accused absconding, the character and behavior of the accused, the likelihood of the offence being repeated, the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, and the danger of the justice being thwarted by the grant of bail. Based on these considerations, the court granted bail to the accused and imposed conditions to ensure that he does not influence the prosecution witnesses or leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without permission.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the consideration of bail in a non-bailable case, the prima facie case against the accused, the severity of the punishment, and the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding a bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of bail, presumption of innocence, and the severity of the punishment. The court also considered the nature and gravity of the charge, the danger of the accused absconding, the character and behavior of the accused, the likelihood of the offence being repeated, the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, and the danger of the justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the accused, Sajad Ahmed, Chief Accounts Officer JKTDC, and imposed conditions to ensure that he does not influence the prosecution witnesses or leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without permission.
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioner/accused arrested on 08.02.2023 in FIR No. RC0042023A003 CBI/ACB Jammu for commission of offences punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 r/w 120-B IPC and presently lying in judicial custody (for the last more than 1 ½ months) in District Jail Jammu has claimed bail on the grounds, that the petitioner is respectable citizen of the nation and resident of J&K and is a Govt. Servant working as Chief Accounts Officer in JKTDC; that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence, on the contrary the complainant is trying to arm twist him with the connivance of certain CBI officers to settle some personal scores which shall be revealed at the stage of cross-examination and defense in the trial, however, by keeping the petitioner under detention is precluding him from preparing the case for trial/ defense which is a "pre-trial punishment"; that the personnel of CBI ACB on 08.02.2023 arrested the petitioner in a false and fabricated case, neither the grounds of arrest nor memo of arrest was prepared and provided to him, and his arrest is in violation to the arrest guidelines as envisaged by the celebrated judgment of "D.K. Basu v. State of W.B."; that later when the bail application was moved before the Ld. Special Judge CBI Jammu, it was made known that FIR No. RC0042023A003 CBI ACB, Jammu u/s 7 PC Act, 1988 read with 120B IPC stands registered against the petitioner on the basis of some trap case, which was botched up and fabricated; that the petitioner is under arrest since 08.02.2023 and alongwith co accused were remanded to judicial custody on 09.02.2023, petitioner has been arrested in violation of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. which envisages that a notice be issued in such cases and it is settled law that arrest must not be resorted to in case of grave requirement that too after following due procedure under law, but in the present case the settled law as well as statue has not been followed, so much so, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has envisaged in "Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar" that in cases of offences entailing punishment upto 7 years the person must not be arrested and in another celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in "Sanjay Chandra v. CBI" (2G Spectrum case) the principle of Bail not jail has been reiterated by the Apex Court, which has been fortified in "Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra" and "P. Chidambaram v. CBI/ED"; that the petitioner is a Govt. employee of middle age and the only bread earner of the family having a wife, small kid and the parents to support, and with the incrimination of the petitioner the entire family is suffering, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail, as neither the petitioner is a criminal nor a flight risk and would undertake to follow all the conditions of the Hon'ble court in case he is granted bail.
2. Respondents/CBI per-contra, by filing the objections have opposed the bail on the grounds, that case FIR No. RC0042023A0003, dated 08.02.2023 has been registered by the CBI, Jammu u/s120-B of IPC r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis of complaint dated 07.02.2023 lodged by one Pankaj Kumar Verma S/o Sh. Sarvan Kumar R/o Lotus Villa, 232 Sector-1, Jalpura Greater Noida UP, alleging demand of bribe of Rs. 2.30 lacs by accused Sajad Ahmed Chief Accounts Officer JKTDC through Shokat Ali for processing of payment in respect of bills submitted by the complainant, that a trap was laid and both the accused persons namely, Sajjad Ahmed Chief Accounts Officer JKTDC and Shokat Ali Lecturer Govt. Polytechnic College Jammu were caught red-handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 2.30 lacs from the complainant in presence of independent witnesses and were subsequently arrested on 08.02.2023 and taken into custody after following all the legal procedure. It is contended, that considering the gravity of the offence, the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption (CBI Cases) Ja
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....
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 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....
The court reiterated that bail should be the norm, not the exception, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and necessity of substantial evidence to deny bail.
The judgment established the principle that the object of bail is to secure the accused's appearance at trial and emphasized the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, balancing the accused's ....
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
