Raj Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

1. Present bail application has been moved under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has no concern with M/s P.P. Trading Co.and M/s P.G. Trading Co. where allegedly the complainant has transferred a sum of Rs.[2] crores as an illegal gratification for procuring the government contract. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he is ready to join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

3. Per contra, learned APP for the State has submitted that as per instructions of the IO, the present applicant in conspiracy with his coaccused persons got the money transferred to the account of M/s P.P.Trading company and M/s P.G. trading company. It has further been submitted that as a part of the conspiracy, the cash was collected by the present accused from the account holder of M/s P.P.Trading company and M/s P.G. Trading company. Learned APP for the states that it is serious case where thorough investigation is required to be conducted and the custodial interrogation of the accused is also required. Furthermore, it also been informed that the bail application of the co-accuse Amit Bindal was dismissed as withdrawn.

4. The criteria for granting the bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are quite well defined. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, inter alia, following factors should be looked into:

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and

(iii) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested,

5. In the present case, the facts as stated by learned APP for the State are quite serious in nature. The amount of Rs.[2] crores has changed hands and the allegations are of illegal gratification. Such matters require thorough probe. The necessity of the custodial investigation also cannot be ruled out. The grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the investigation.

6. I consider that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Power of the court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being that of an extraordinary remedy has to be exercised sparingly, more so, in the cases of economic offences.

7. The bail application is, hence, dismissed.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 29, 2022