The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No. 13957 of 2023 Navdeep Singh Chawla @ Navdeep Chawla … Petitioner Mr. D. Panda, Advocate Union of India (CBI) … Opposite Party -versus- Mr. S. Nayak, Advocate (CBI) CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 22.01.2024 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C.
Facts
by the petitioner for grant of bail arising out of F.I.R. No. RC015202A0014 corresponding to R.C. Case No. 14(A) of 2023/BBS pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (CBI-1), Bhubaneswar for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B of the IPC r/w Sections 7/7-A/11/12 of the P.C. Act, on the allegation of entering into criminal conspiracy with co-accused Chandan Kumar and Ravi Kumar Rajesh, the officials of C.P.W.D. and others contractors/ suppliers with pre-determined intention of showing undue favour to the said contractors/suppliers in the matter of facilitating for passing of fake and fabricated bills of supply of goods and obtaining huge Page 1 of 6 amount of illegal gratification from the said contractors/ suppliers without receiving any goods or receiving less quantity of goods and items viz. D.G. sets, computers and ACs. etc and in the process, being caught red handed by CBI while paying the bribe of Rs.2,00,000/- to the co-accused Ravi Kumar Rajesh, a lower division Clerk working in the office of CPWD, Sambalpur. 3. In the course of hearing of the bail
Legal Reasoning
he being prima facie involved in this case should not be enlarged on bail. Mr. Nayak further submits that there was an admitted transaction of Rs.23,00,000/- between the petitioner and the co-accused and there is ample material on record to substantiate the conspiracy between the petitioner and other co- accused persons for extending undue favour to different contractors and suppliers in lieu of payment of bribe by processing fake and false bills without real supply of goods or less supply of goods and items to the department and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. Mr. Nayak, accordingly, prays to reject the bail application of the petitioner. 5. It appears from the record that although the petitioner has been alleged to have entered into conspiracy for showing undue favour to contractors Page 3 of 6 and suppliers by way of receiving bribe for the co- accused officials and retaining some amount of it, but the petitioner being the proprietor of some private business concerned, he is not a Government official. Further, it appears from the materials collected on record that there is an allegation against the petitioner for receiving bribe for co-accused persons. It is also alleged that the petitioner and the co- accused Ravi Kumar Rajesh, a LDC in CPWD office were receiving the bribe for Harish Nayak, the A.E. of CPWD. Further, the trap memo indicates about the allegation against the petitioner for paying the bribe to co-accused for onward transmission to another co- accused. It is also found from the up-to-date Case Diary supplied by the learned counsel for CBI that the investigation has progressed substantially and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is already over and the petitioner has already been in custody for near about 49 days. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, and taking into consideration the rival submissions, as also the materials placed on record and regard being had to the nature and gravity of offence as alleged against the petitioner and his status being a private business man and keeping in view the pre-trial detention of the petitioner in custody as well as the progress of investigation and bail being the rule, jail being the exception, this Court without expressing Page 4 of 6 any opinion on the merits of the case, grants bail to the petitioner. 7. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail, Petitioner (ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case the fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.229-A of IPC in accordance with law. (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case. the petitioner iv) report attendance before the I.O. as and when required. shall of residence (v) the Petitioner shall inform the Court as well as the I.O. as to his place the investigation/trial by providing his mobile number, residential address, e- mail, if any, and other documents in support of proof of residence. during Page 5 of 6 It is clarified that the Court in seisin of the case will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner without further reference to this Court, if any of the above conditions are violated or a case for cancellation of bail is otherwise made out. In the wake of aforesaid, the subsequent involvement of the petitioner for similar offences in future on prima facie accusations may be treated as a ground for cancellation of bail. The sealed packets containing up- to-date Case Diary as produced earlier be returned to the counsel for the CBI on proper acknowledgement. 8. 9.
Arguments
application, Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has been alleged to have entered into conspiracy with co- accused persons to process fake bills of goods and items, not supplied to the department or supplied less quantity to the department, but there is absolutely no material to substantiate such allegation against the petitioner, who being a private person and not having tendered any bribe to co-accused, his further detention in custody is unwarranted. It is further submitted that although the C.B.I. informs that there are transactions between the petitioner and the co- accused through bank accounts and other modes, but the same having not been established through any clear and cogent materials and there being no demand and acceptance of bribe in this case, the petitioner’s detention in custody is against the principle of law. Mr. Panda alternatively submits that since the petitioner is in custody for near about 50 days and investigation has been progressed Page 2 of 6 substantially and the petitioner having already been subjected to custodial interrogation, there being no requirement of further custodial interrogation of the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice to grant bail to the petitioner, most specifically when the investigation has progressed substantially. On these submissions, Mr. Panda prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S. Nayak, learned counsel for the CBI by highlighting the facts submits that since the petitioner was instrumental in the transaction and he having been caught red handed while paying the bribe to the co-accused and thereby,
Decision
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. (G. Satapathy) Judge S. Sasmal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Jan-2024 15:27:24 Page 6 of 6