Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Party

Lochan Shukla : Rahul Srivastava Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for C.B.I.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in RC No.RC2172025A0012, under Sections 61(2) of B.N.S. read with Section 7, 9, 10 & 12 P.C. Act, Police Station CBI/AC-II/New Delhi during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Deputy General Manager (Sales and Marketing) in United Drilling Tools Limited (in short UDTL) and as per allegation, he paid bribe of Rs. 7 lakhs to co-accused Prayas Chakravorty, who was Deputy General Manager in Oil India Limited to secure the tender but entire allegations leveled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He further submits, even from perusal of charge-sheet which has been filed by the CBI, it appears, co-accused Kunal Gupta, the Managing Director of UDTL approved the amount of Rs. 7 lakhs and applicant was the person who handed over the same as cash to co-accused Prayas Chakravorty but surprisingly court concerned although granted bail to co-accused Kunal Gupta but rejected the bail application of the applicant.

5. He further submits, as Managing Director of UDTL has already been released on bail, therefore, being Deputy General Manager of the company applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. 2 BAIL No. 29747 of 2025

6. He next submits, even except the bald and verbal allegation that applicant gave bribe to co-accused Prayas Chakravorty there is no evidence of acceptance of the bribe by the co-accused Prayas Chakravorty from the applicant.

7. He further submits, applicant is a Senior Officer in a limited company and he is having good reputation in the society and apart from the present case he is not having any other criminal history to his credit.

8. He further submits, charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no need of further detention of the applicant in the instant matter specially considering the fact that Managing Director of UDTL has already been released on bail even by the court concerned.

9. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since

04.05.2025 i.e. for almost five months.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant was the person who gave bribe to the co-accused Prayas Chakravorty, the Deputy General Manager, Oil India Limited and therefore, the case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of Kunal Gupta, the Managing Director of UDTL who has been enlarged on bail even by the court concerned but could not dispute the fact that from the charge-sheet it reflects, co-accused Kunal Gupta, the M.D. of UDTL approved the amount of Rs. 7 lakhs and after his approval applicant handed over the same in cash to co-accused Prayas Chakravorty.

11. Learned counsel for C.B.I. also could not dispute the fact that charge- sheet in the present matter has been submitted and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 04.05.2025 i.e. for almost five months.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, as per allegation, applicant was Deputy General Manager (Sales and Marketing) in UDTL and he to secure the tender gave bribe money of Rs. 7 lakhs cash to co-accused Prayas Chakravorty, who was DGM in Oil India Limited but from the charge-sheet filed by CBI, it reflects, co-accused Kunal Gupta, who was M.D. of UDTL was the person who approved the withdrawal of cash of Rs. 7 lakhs and he has been released on 3 BAIL No. 29747 of 2025 bail even by the court concerned itself.

14. Further, except the bald allegation that applicant is the person who handed over cash to co-accused Prayas Chakravorty there is no cogent and admissible evidence in this regard on record and admittedly it is not a case of trap.

15. Further, investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and apart from the present case applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter applicant is in jail since

04.05.2025 i.e. for almost five months.

16. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant - Mr Jyoti Kumar Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts 4 BAIL No. 29747 of 2025 brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 22, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lochan Shukla : Rahul Srivastava Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for C.B.I.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in RC No.RC2172025A0012, under Sections 61(2) of B.N.S. read with Section 7, 9, 10 & 12 P.C. Act, Police Station CBI/AC-II/New Delhi during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, applicant was Deputy General Manager (Sales and Marketing) in United Drilling Tools Limited (in short UDTL) and as per allegation, he paid bribe of Rs. 7 lakhs to co-accused Prayas Chakravorty, who was Deputy General Manager in Oil India Limited to secure the tender but entire allegations leveled against the applicant are totally false.

4. He further submits, even from perusal of charge-sheet which has been filed by the CBI, it appears, co-accused Kunal Gupta, the Managing Director of UDTL approved the amount of Rs. 7 lakhs and applicant was the person who handed over the same as cash to co-accused Prayas Chakravorty but surprisingly court concerned although granted bail to co-accused Kunal Gupta but rejected the bail application of the applicant.

5. He further submits, as Managing Director of UDTL has already been released on bail, therefore, being Deputy General Manager of the company applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. 2 BAIL No. 29747 of 2025

6. He next submits, even except the bald and verbal allegation that applicant gave bribe to co-accused Prayas Chakravorty there is no evidence of acceptance of the bribe by the co-accused Prayas Chakravorty from the applicant.

7. He further submits, applicant is a Senior Officer in a limited company and he is having good reputation in the society and apart from the present case he is not having any other criminal history to his credit.

8. He further submits, charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no need of further detention of the applicant in the instant matter specially considering the fact that Managing Director of UDTL has already been released on bail even by the court concerned.

9. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since

04.05.2025 i.e. for almost five months.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant was the person who gave bribe to the co-accused Prayas Chakravorty, the Deputy General Manager, Oil India Limited and therefore, the case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of Kunal Gupta, the Managing Director of UDTL who has been enlarged on bail even by the court concerned but could not dispute the fact that from the charge-sheet it reflects, co-accused Kunal Gupta, the M.D. of UDTL approved the amount of Rs. 7 lakhs and after his approval applicant handed over the same in cash to co-accused Prayas Chakravorty.

11. Learned counsel for C.B.I. also could not dispute the fact that charge- sheet in the present matter has been submitted and applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 04.05.2025 i.e. for almost five months.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, as per allegation, applicant was Deputy General Manager (Sales and Marketing) in UDTL and he to secure the tender gave bribe money of Rs. 7 lakhs cash to co-accused Prayas Chakravorty, who was DGM in Oil India Limited but from the charge-sheet filed by CBI, it reflects, co-accused Kunal Gupta, who was M.D. of UDTL was the person who approved the withdrawal of cash of Rs. 7 lakhs and he has been released on 3 BAIL No. 29747 of 2025 bail even by the court concerned itself.

14. Further, except the bald allegation that applicant is the person who handed over cash to co-accused Prayas Chakravorty there is no cogent and admissible evidence in this regard on record and admittedly it is not a case of trap.

15. Further, investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and apart from the present case applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter applicant is in jail since

04.05.2025 i.e. for almost five months.

16. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose.

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant - Mr Jyoti Kumar Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts 4 BAIL No. 29747 of 2025 brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 22, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad