Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. KANWAL JEET ARORA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL
JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Bail Matter No. 88/2025
GAUTAM CHAWLA
…….Applicant/petitioner
vs
CBI …….Respondent
RC 216 2025 A 0005, P.S.-CBI/AC-1, New Delhi
U/s. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(as
amended in 2018 read with Section 61 of the BNS, 2023.
19.05.2025
Appearance :
Sh. A. K. Kushwaha, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI
Sh. Nilesh Sawhney, Ld. Counsel for the
applicant/accused
ORDER
1. On the basis of a source information, the CBI/AC-I Branch,
New Delhi had registered the present case bearing no. RC 216 2025
A 0005 at P.S.-CBI/AC-1, Delhi on 06.04.2025. The present case
was registered against Saket Chand Srivastava, Sr. Divisional
Bail Matter No. 88/2025
RC 216 2025 A 0005, P.S.-CBI/AC-1, Delhi 1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
2
Electrical Engineer (G) of the office of DRM, New Delhi, Northern
Railways besides two other officers from the same office and some
private persons including the present applicant Gautam Chawla. The
present applicant/accused was arrested by CBI on 06.04.2025 along
with two public servants and was produced before the court on
07.04.2025.
2. The applicant was initially remanded to police custody where
he remained till 11.04.2025 and thereafter, he was sent to judicial
custody where he is lodged till date. The present application under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has
been filed on behalf of the applicant on the grounds that the
applicant/accused has been falsely implicated by CBI, who used him
as a scapegoat against the public servants. It is contended in the
application that the case of the prosecution is self contradictory as
on one hand, the CBI states that public servants asked the present
accused to arrange for the bribe money of Rs. 5 lakhs, whereas on
the date of incident i.e. 06.04.2025, it is alleged that the
applicant/accused was apprehended along with the public servants
while handing them over the bribe money of Rs. 7 lakhs.
3. It is submitted that whatever investigations were required to
be carried out by the investigating agency has already been done and
even the voice samples of the applicant have been taken. It is further
contended in the application that the applicant/accused has clean
antecedents and has a family to look after, of which he is the only
Bail Matter No. 88/2025
RC 216 2025 A 0005, P.S.-CBI/AC-1, Delhi 2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
3
male member. It is contended that the applicant/accused being no
longer required for the purposes of investigations be released on
Bail.
4. Countering the averments made in the application, reply has
been filed by the CBI. It is contended in the reply that the present
accused has indulged in corrupt practices with the public servants in
order to gain undue advantage in processing the tender for supply of
electrical equipments in his favour. It is submitted that the present
applicant was apprehended by the CBI while handing over the bribe
amount to the public servants. It is further stated that the
investigation is at initial stages and release of the accused/applicant
on Bail will prejudice further investigations.
5. I have heard the arguments advances on behalf of the parties
and have gone through the material placed on record.
6. Sh. Nilesh Sawhney, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused
contended that there is no complaint in the present case and the case
is based only on a source information by the CBI. It is submitted by
the learned counsel for the applicant that the case of the prosecution
is self contradictory as no one is expected to give bribe money to the
public servants more than the demanded amount. It is contended that
though there is no evidence on record of any demand but against the
allegations of demand of Rs. 5 lakhs, no reasonable person would
pay a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs, as is the alleged case in hand. Learned
Bail Matter No. 88/2025
RC 216 2025 A 0005, P.S.-CBI/AC-1, Delhi 3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
4
counsel for the applicant submits that whatever investigations were
required to be conducted in this case have already been done and the
accused is in judicial custody for more than one and a half month.
7. Sh. A.K. Khushwaha, Sr. PP for the CBI refuted the
contentions advanced on behalf of the applicant. Learned SPP
submitted that the accused/applicant was arrested on the spot while
handing over the bribe money to the public servants and his release
on Bail would hamper the investigations. Ld. SPP for CBI further
stated that the accused might not join the investigations and face
trial. In order to buttress his submissions, he has relied upon the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar
vs. Amit Kumar (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 77.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
contentions advanced and have gone through the precedents relied
upon by both the sides.
9. It is a settled proposition of law that at the stage of
considering the application for grant of Bail, the court is not
required to go into the detailed examinations of evidence. As at this
stage the merits of the case are not required to be pre-judged.
However, while considering the Bail Application it is required to be
taken into consideration as to what is the character of evidence
sought to be put forth along with the circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused. It is also required to be taken into
Bail Matter No. 88/2025
RC 216 2025 A 0005, P.S.-CBI/AC-1, Delhi 4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
5
consideration the reasonable possibilities and probabilities of
securing the presence of the accused, during the course of
investigations as well as the trial. It is also required to be considered
at this stage that release of the accused on Bail should not be against
the interest of the State or the public interest.
10. In ‘Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 the Hon’ble
Apex Court has also held that the object of bail is “neither punitive
nor preventive”. Deprivation of liberty must be considered as
punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person
will stand his trial when called upon. Further, in ‘Satender Kumar
Antil vs. CBI SLP (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021’ Hon’ble Supreme Court
while defining the guidelines to be followed at the time of deciding
a bail application, had held that the criminal courts are the guardian
angels of liberty and it is the duty of the court to zealously guard the
constitutional values and ethos.
11. In the light of the above observations made by the Hon’ble
superior courts, it is apparent on perusal of the case in hand that the
same is based on a source information. Though, the CBI has stated
that during the course of investigations they got 194 intercepted call
details which they have received from their Special Unit regarding
the conversations between the present accused and other public
servants. In order to connect the conversations in these intercepted
calls, which as per the CBI, they had taken after taking the requisite
permissions from the competent authorities, they have already
Bail Matter No. 88/2025
RC 216 2025 A 0005, P.S.-CBI/AC-1, Delhi 5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
6
collected the voice samples. Nothing more is required to be
collected from the present accused/applicant.
12. Having regards to the observations made by the Hon’ble
Superior Courts and taking into consideration the present facts, at
this stage of deciding the Bail Application, I would refrain from
making any observations regarding the legalities of the permissions
sought from the competent authorities by the CBI for intercepting
the calls, it’s admissibility and the connection with the person
accused. Further, the mobile and other gadgets of the applicant have
already been seized by the CBI, thus there are very little chances of
the accused hampering the investigations or doing any overt act for
causing the evidence to disappear. Apart from this, there seems to be
nothing on record to substantiate the apprehension of the CBI that
the accused if released on bail could misuse the liberty as it is a
matter of record that the accused/applicant is a resident of Delhi and
is having a family which consists of his ailing mother-in-law and a
tender son of 4 years of age.
13. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the accused/applicant Sh. Gautam Chawla is admitted to
regular bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 Lakh
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of this court
subject to the following conditions:-
Bail Matter No. 88/2025
RC 216 2025 A 0005, P.S.-CBI/AC-1, Delhi 6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
7
a. The applicant shall join the investigation as and when directed
by the court;
b. the applicant shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the court;
c. the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case;
d. the applicant shall provide his mobile number(s) to the
Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times; and
e. in case of change of residential address (es) and / or mobile
number (s), the applicants shall intimate the same to the
Investigating Officer / Court by way of an affidavit.
14. Copy of the bail order be given
dasti to the parties and be also
sent to Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance.
15. With these observations, the present bail application is
disposed off.
(Kanwal Jeet Arora)
Principal District & Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI),
Rouse Avenue District Court
New Delhi/19.05.2025
Bail Matter No. 88/2025
RC 216 2025 A 0005, P.S.-CBI/AC-1, Delhi 7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --