Rajesh Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation

device was on, and although the first attempt to record the conversation failed due to the presence of other persons, the second attempt led to a successful recording in which the Principal allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 80,000, later reducing it to Rs. 50,000-60,000 for a period covering 10 to 11 months of continued employment of eight workers.

8. The recorded conversation was verified by the CBI team and found to contain both the complainant's and the accused's voices, which were later authenticated by witnesses and school staff. 2

9. On 24.09.2024, a trap was laid at Hotel Stallion in Shivalik Nagar, Haridwar, where the complainant was introduced to the CBI trap team and two independent witnesses an officer from Punjab National Bank and an Administrative Officer from LIC.

10. The complainant was again given a digital voice recorder and Rs. 30,000 in pre-treated currency notes. The complainant met the accused that evening inside the school premises and, as per the plan, handed over the money.

11. The CBI team, after being alerted, entered the premises, identified the Principal, and recovered the money from his person, specifically from the right rear pocket of his trousers, tucked within a wallet. Sodium carbonate hand wash tests yielded positive results, confirming that the accused had come into contact with the treated money.

12. Rajesh Kumar was arrested in the early hours of 25.09.2024 and has remained in judicial custody since.

13. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the CBI. Perused the record.

14. The learned counsel for the applicant has asserted that he has been falsely implicated in the case owing to internal politics and personal vendetta within the school. According to him, the complainant, Arvind Kumar, acted under the influence of certain disgruntled teaching and non- teaching staff who resented the applicant's firm administrative style. 3

15. He has argued that just before his impending retirement in June 2025, such an incident was orchestrated to tarnish his image and reputation.

16. The applicant has further stated that he had, on an earlier occasion, lent Rs. 10,000 to the complainant for his daughter's admission and that the money allegedly recovered from him was a repayment of that personal loan.

17. Although the complainant initially denied any loan transaction during the post-trap proceedings, he later admitted to having borrowed the amount, which the applicant submits is crucial to understanding the context of the monetary exchange.

18. The applicant has also stressed that all material and documentary evidence has already been collected and that no useful purpose would be served by his continued detention.

19. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Vikas Chawla v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 382, where the Court granted bail in a corruption matter primarily on the ground that all evidence was already in possession of the investigating agency.

20. He has also raised procedural objections under Section 35 of the BNSS (earlier Section 41A of CrPC), arguing that no prior notice was issued to him before his arrest despite the offence being punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, he contends that arrest in such cases without following due procedure is illegal. 4

21. Moreover, the applicant has alleged that the charge sheet filed on

22.11.2024 is incomplete, as it was submitted without the CFSL report and the mandatory sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act. He argues that the charge sheet was filed in a hurried manner to defeat his right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. He further emphasizes his clean antecedents, his age, and the absence of any risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice.

22. The learned counsel for CBI, Mr. Piyush Garg, however, has contested the bail plea through a detailed counter-affidavit filed by Inspector Sharad Chandra Gusain, the Investigating Officer.

23. It has been categorically stated that the FIR was registered only after the pre-trap verification confirmed the demand for illegal gratification. The CBI emphasizes that the entire trap was executed with strict procedural compliance and in the presence of two independent public servants.

24. The recorded conversations, both during verification and during the actual trap, were corroborated not only by the complainant but also by school employees Vishal Soni and Sunil Kumar, who identified the accused’s voice. The agency maintains that the accused was caught red-handed in possession of the bribe amount and that sodium carbonate testing confirmed the handling of tainted money. The agency also points to the seizure of CCTV footage from the school premises, further substantiating the prosecution’s version of events.

25. Regarding procedural lapses alleged by the applicant, the CBI submits that the reasons for the arrest were properly documented in the arrest memo in accordance with Section 35 of BNSS. The agency also cites 5 judgments from the Delhi and Gauhati High Courts, affirming that the absence of a CFSL report at the time of filing the charge sheet does not render it incomplete, and that additional documents may be submitted subsequently.

26. The CBI clarifies that a prosecution sanction has since been obtained and filed before the Special Court. As the case is now at the stage of framing of charge, the agency expresses apprehension that if the applicant is released on bail at this stage, there is a genuine risk that he may influence or intimidate key witnesses who were his subordinates during his tenure.

27. The CBI, therefore, urges the Court to consider the gravity of the offence, the status of the accused as a public servant in a position of influence, and the stage of the proceedings, to reject the bail application in the interest of justice.

28. It is their contention that this is not merely a case of documentary evidence but involves direct evidence in the form of voice recordings, trap proceedings, recovery, and corroborative witness testimony, which collectively establish a strong prima facie case against the applicant Rajesh Kumar.

29. This Court has undertaken a careful and holistic assessment of the factual matrix, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the present stage of the criminal proceedings, the statutory framework governing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the applicable judicial precedents cited by both sides. 6

30. The reasoning proceeds from a deliberate and constitutionally anchored endeavour to balance the imperatives of safeguarding personal liberty on one hand and ensuring the integrity and credibility of the criminal justice system on the other, particularly where the allegations pertain to corruption involving a public servant occupying a position of trust and authority.

31. At the very outset, this Court has taken note of the settled legal position that a prosecution under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates the establishment of foundational facts of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant. The Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, has crystallised the evidentiary threshold required under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act.

32. This Court notes that while demand is a sine qua non, the requirement of direct oral evidence is not absolute. The Court in Neeraj Dutta authoritatively affirmed that such foundational facts may also be proved through circumstantial evidence, including corroborative material such as audio recordings, trap proceedings, as well as the testimony of independent witnesses.

33. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is satisfied that the element of demand has been prima facie established. The pre-trap verification dated 23.09.2024, which was recorded and subsequently corroborated by two independent witnesses and school staff, reveals that the applicant initially demanded a sum of ₹80,000, which was subsequently negotiated down to ₹50,000–₹60,000 in relation to the continuation of service of eight contractual employees. 7

34. The statement of the complainant, when read in conjunction with the verification proceedings and voice identification by public witnesses, constitutes a robust evidentiary basis to infer the existence of demand.

35. Though the post-trap conversation dated 24.09.2024 may not contain an express reiteration of the earlier demand, such absence does not by itself negate the offence. The acceptance of ₹30,000 in phenolphthalein-laced currency is not in dispute.

36. Once acceptance is established and a proven demand precedes it, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act becomes operative. As clarified in Neeraj Dutta, such inferential deduction is legally permissible and adequate for the Court to presume that the gratification was accepted as a motive or reward unless rebutted.

37. The Court has further examined the nature and quality of the trap proceedings conducted on 24.09.2024. The accused was apprehended in possession of ₹30,000 in tainted currency, recovered from his person in the presence of two independent witnesses. The sodium carbonate hand wash test of the applicant returned positive, conclusively indicating contact with the bribe amount.

38. In addition, CCTV footage corroborates the physical presence of both the complainant and the accused at the relevant place and time.

39. The defence of the applicant that the amount was a repayment of a personal loan was noted by the Court. However, the sequence of events, including the complainant's initial denial and subsequent partial admission allegedly made under pressure regarding a prior loan of ₹10,000, renders 8 such explanation unconvincing. The version set up by the applicant appears to be an afterthought and does not inspire confidence when tested against the entirety of the material on record.

40. Insofar as the procedural objection raised by the applicant regarding non-compliance with Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (earlier Section 41A of the CrPC) is concerned, this Court finds no merit in the same.

41. The arrest in the present case was not by way of a routine summoning but was occasioned during a duly sanctioned and executed trap operation.

42. The arrest memo records the grounds and reasons for arrest in compliance with the procedural safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, and reaffirmed in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. The arrest, in this context, was not mechanical but necessitated by the detection of a cognizable offence, committed in the presence of independent witnesses and established through contemporaneous material evidence.

43. A further consideration which weighs against the grant of bail is the position held by the accused at the relevant time. As Principal of a Kendriya Vidyalaya, the applicant exercised considerable administrative authority over the very witnesses whose testimony would be central to the trial.

44. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the applicant may influence or intimidate such witnesses is not speculative. It is grounded 9 in the practical realities of hierarchical institutional structures, where implicit deference and hierarchical dependency are often at play. The possibility of interference with the trial process, at the stage of pre-charge evidence, cannot be lightly disregarded.

45. This Court does not lose sight of the constitutional primacy accorded to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, personal liberty, though fundamental, is not absolute. Where credible material discloses a pattern of systemic abuse of official position to extract unlawful benefit, such liberty must yield to the broader imperative of justice and institutional accountability.

46. Corruption by a public servant is not merely a private wrong; it corrodes public trust, undermines institutional integrity, and has a cascading effect on governance and service delivery. The offence alleged is therefore one of serious public concern and calls for a cautious and calibrated judicial approach. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no justifiable ground to grant bail at this stage. The application stands rejected. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated: 09.04.2025 NR/ 10