Sandeep Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation

challenged t he credibilit y of t he CBI ’s t rap proceedings, alleging t hat t he bribe m oney was forcibly placed in his hands and t hat he was coerced int o t he sit uat ion. I t is cont ended t hat his fingerprint s were not found on t he recovered bribe m oney, and t here were no independent wit nesses t o t he alleged accept ance of t he bribe. Furt herm ore, it has been argued t hat t he forensic report of his voice sam ple has not yet been subm it t ed, which weakens t he case against him .

7. Anot her ground raised by t he applicant is t he seizure of ₹20,49,500 from his residence, which he cont ends was lawfully acquired from t he sale of his land on 09.04.2024 and has no connect ion wit h t he present bribery case. The applicant subm it s t hat he is a law - abiding cit izen wit h no past crim inal record, is not a flight risk, and is willing t o abide by any condit ions im posed by t he court .

8. The CBI has vehem ent ly opposed t he bail applicat ion, arguing t hat t he applicant was caught red- handed accept ing t he bribe. A recorded t elephone conversat ion dat ed

12.04.2024 corroborat ed t his demand. The CBI has also recovered ₹20,49,500 in cash from t he applicant ’s residence, for which he has failed t o provide a sat isfact ory explanat ion. As a result , t he CBI regist ered a Disproport ionat e Asset s ( DA) ( RC0072024A0005) on 25.05.2024, which is st ill under invest igat ion.

9. The CBI cont ends t hat t he applicant ’s release on bail would j eopardise t he t rial proceedings, as t he com plainant is yet t o be exam ined in court , and t here is a st rong likelihood t hat t he applicant m ay influence or int im idat e wit nesses. The CBI argues t hat corrupt ion cases require st rict j udicial scrut iny, and grant ing bail at t his st age could set a wrong precedent and erode public t rust in t he j ust ice syst em .

10. The CBI has also opposed t he argum ent of prolonged incarcerat ion, cont ending t hat delay in t rial is not a valid ground for bail in corrupt ion cases. The CBI assert s t hat t he nat ure and gravit y of t he allegat ions against t he applicant , coupled wit h t he fact t hat t he t rial is at a crucial st age, m ake him ineligible for bail. The CBI has furt her point ed out t hat t he applicant ’s financial records indicat e unexplained asset s, which are current ly under invest igat ion in t he Disproport ionat e Asset s ( DA) case, and releasing him at t his st age m ay ham per ongoing inquiries.

11. Given t he seriousness of t he allegat ions, t he pot ent ial risk of wit ness t am pering, t he ongoing financial invest igat ion, and t he fact t hat t wo bail applicat ions have already been rej ect ed, t he CBI has urged t he Hon’ble Court t o dism iss t he present bail applicat ion. The court has carefully considered t he argum ent s advanced by bot h part ies and exam ined t he case on record.

12. At t he out set , it is set t led law t hat m ere lengt h of incarcerat ion cannot be a st andalone ground for bail in cases involving econom ic offences, corrupt ion, or bribery by public officials. The Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Y.S. Ja g a n M o h a n Re d d y v . CBI , ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 SCC 4 3 9 has t hat “ econom ic offences const it ut e a separat e cat egory of crim es, as t hey involve deep- root ed conspiracies, m isuse of public office, and significant financial im plicat ions for societ y.” The court , in t hat case,em phasised t hat corrupt ion and financial underm ine t he rule of law and public t rust in governance, necessit at ing a st rict er approach in grant ing bail.

13. I n t he present case, t he applicant , while serving as an Assist ant Engineer in CPWD, is alleged t o have dem anded and accept ed a bribe t o allow cont inued const ruct ion work, which direct ly affect s public adm inist rat ion and governm ent cont ract s. Therefore, t he gravit y of t he allegat ions cannot be ignored when considering t he quest ion of bail.

14. The applicant has sought t o argue t hat t he delay in t rial should weigh in Favor of his release. However, t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court in N i m m a g a d d a Pr a sa d v . CBI ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 SCC 4 6 6 has held t hat m ere delay in a t rial does not ent it le an accused t o bail in econom ic offences, part icularly when serious allegat ions of corrupt ion and bribery are involved. The court m ust balance personal libert y wit h t he m ore significant public int erest . The sam e principle was reit erat ed i n CBI v . Vi j a y Sa i Re d d y ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 SCC 4 5 2 , where t he Suprem e Court observed t hat in cases where prim a facie m at erial exist s against t he accused, cont inued det ent ion is j ust ified even in cases of prolonged cust ody.

15. I n t he present case, t he t rial has not com m enced due t o procedural reasons and not due t o any deliberat e delay by t he st at e. Furt herm ore, t he com plainant is yet t o be exam ined, and releasing t he applicant at t his st age could pose a serious risk of wit ness t am pering and t rial int erference.

16. Anot her crucial fact or against t he applicant is t he ongoing Disproport ionat e Asset s ( DA) invest igat ion. The CBI has subm it t ed t hat a search conduct ed at t he applicant’s residence led to the seizure of ₹20,49,500 in cash, for which t he applicant failed t o provide a sat isfact ory explanat ion. This led t o t he regist rat ion of a separat e DA case ( RC0072024A0005) on 25.05.2024, which rem ains under invest igat ion.

17. The Hon’ble Suprem e Court in P. Chidam baram v. Direct orat e of Enforcem ent ( 2019) 9 SCC 24 has held t hat in cases involving m ult iple layers of allegat ions of corrupt ion and illegal m onet ary gains, t he court m ust exercise caut ion while considering bail, ensuring t hat t he int egrit y of t he invest igat ion is not com prom ised. I n t he present case, t he pendency of a separat e financial invest igat ion furt her st rengt hens t he CBI ’s cont ent ion t hat t he applicant should not be released at t his st age.

18. The applicant has sought t o rely on t he principle t hat bail should not be denied m erely due t o prolonged cust ody. However, in sim ilar cases of financial offences, court s have consist ent ly refused bail even aft er ext ended incarcerat ion.

19. I n Sa n j a y Ch a n d r a v . CBI ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 SCC 4 0 , t he Suprem e Court denied bail t o t he accused in t he 2G Spect rum Scam , despit e t heir period incarcerat ion, holding t hat econom ic offences involving public m oney m ust be t reat ed different ly from ordinary crim es.

20. A sim ilar view was t aken in M a n o j Ja y a sw a l v . CBI ( 2 0 2 1 ) SCC On Li n e SC 1 2 3 2 , where t he Suprem e Court held t hat econom ic offences st rike at t he foundat ion of financial governance, and court s m ust exercise ext rem e caut ion in grant ing bail in such m at t ers. The fact s of t he present case reveal t hat t he allegat ions against t he applicant are severe, t he evidence on record support s t he charges, and t he possibilit y of int erference t he t rial rem ains high. The claim of prolonged incarcerat ion cannot override t he considerat ions of public int erest , t he nat ure of t he offence, and t he risk t o t he t rial process.

21. Accordingly, t his court finds no valid ground t o grant bail, and t he present bail applicat ion st ands rej ect ed. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.)

28.02.2025