Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI ROUSE AVENUE
DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
CBI V. Reshabh Raizada
bail application No. 169/2023
CNR No.DLCT11-0006272023
CBI No. RC 2182023A0011/CBI/AC-III/NEW DELHI
U/s. 120-B IPC r/w 7, 7A, 8, 9,10 and 12 of PC Act 1988
24.08.2023
Appearance : Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI
Sh. Naveen Kumar, Ld. Counsel for
accused Reshabh Raizada
ORDER
Applicant / accused has filed bail application
seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C having been in
custody since 29.07.2023.
The RC has been registered for offences punishable
under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7, 7A, 8, 9,10 and 12
of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The CBI has registered
the present case against public servants Manjeet Singh, Joint
Director, Ministry of Corporate Affiars, Office of Director
General (Corporate Affairs), Puneet Duggal, Joint Director,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, Ruhi Arora
Senior Technical Assistant, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Shastri
-- 1 of 7 --
2
Bhawan, New Delhi and accused/applicant Reshabh Raizada
associate of M/s Alok Industries and also against the company
M/s Alok Industries.
According to the prosecution, a trap was laid by CBI ACB-
III and upon delivery of bribe amount by accused Ruhi Arora to
accused Manjeet Singh in his office at Shahjahan Road, New
Delhi, the bribe amount was recovered amounting to Rs.
3,00,000/-. Investigation has revealed that a matter relating to
M/s Alok Industries was pending with the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs and in order to get favourable settlement,
accused/applicant Reshabh Raizada was in regular contact with
accused Puneet Duggal and bribe amount was given to accused
Puneet Duggal. The role attributed to accused Reshabh Raizada
has been that he has been in regular contact with accused Puneet
Kumar Duggal and handed over the bribe amount to Puneet
Kumar Duggal on two occasions. On 28.07.2023, the bribe
amount of Rs.4 Lacs was collected by accused Ruhi Arora from
accused Puneet Duggal and she kept Rs.1,00,000/- with her and
delivered remaining Rs.3,00,000/- to accused Manjeet Singh at
his office. The accused persons were apprehended during the trap
and search proceedings were also conducted.
The accused / applicant Reshabh Raizada has pleaded in
his bail application that he is well qualified professional with
over 40 years professional experience and worked across several
reputed companies. The applicant resigned from M/s Alok
Industries in the month of January 2023 and received his no dues
-- 2 of 7 --
3
certificate. The applicant is a senior citizen being 64 years of age
and suffering from diabetes and hypertension.
On the other hand, CBI has filed written submissions with
the assertions that accused / applicant has been actively involved
in the conspiracy and handed over the bribe amount to Puneet
Kumar Duggal. The investigation is ongoing and evidence are
being collected and statements of witnesses are being recorded.
The bribe amount has been recovered during trap proceedings
and besides that, unaccounted cash of Rs.22,80,000/- was seized
from the residential premises of Sh. Manjeet Singh and
Rs.37,00,000/- was seized from the residence of accused
Reshabh Raizada and Rs.1,29,000/- from the residence of
accused Ruhi Arora and an amount of Rs.5,20,000/- was seized
from the residence of accused Puneet Kumar Duggal. Besides
that four mobile phones, three pen drives, one laptop and other
digital articles have been seized for the purposes of investigation.
In view of the nature and gravity of offence, application for bail
be dismissed.
I have heard Sh. Naveen Kumar, Ld. Counsel for
applicant/ accused and Sh.Praneet Sharma, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI
and also gone through the material on record.
Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has relied upon the judgment of
Supreme Court titled Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs CBI,
MANU/SC/0487/2013. Ld. Counsel for applicant has relied
upon the judgment of Supreme Court titled Sanjay Chandra
vs CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, CBI vs Amarmani Tripathi (2005)
-- 3 of 7 --
4
8SCC 21, Nagendra v. King Emperor (AIR 1924 Cal 476, 479,
480: 25 Cri LJ 732), Court on its own Motion vs Central
Bureau of Investigation, 109 (2003) DLT 494, Arnesh Kumar
vs State (2014) 8 SCC 273, Emperor v. Hutchinson (AIR
1931 All 356, 358: 32 Cri LJ 1271), Niranjan Singh & Anr. vs.
Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 559.
The accused /applicant Reshabh Raizada was arrested and
produced on 29.07.2023. He remained in police custody till
02.08.2023 and was put to thorough interrogation. The relevant
and material evidence has been collected and seized and
witnesses have been examined. The house of the applicant/
accused was also searched by the CBI.
The bail is a matter of discretion which must be exercised
judiciously. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the
exception has been well recognized. The object of bail is to
secure the presence of the accused during the trial and to ensure
the fairness of the process. It is not in dispute that bail cannot be
refused as a matter of pre-trial punishment.
The High Court of Delhi in judgment Runu Ghosh vs
State (CBI) decided on 01.09.1996 in Crml. Misc. Appeal no.
2136/1996 observed as under:-
The Court before granting bail in cases involving non-
bailable offences, is to take into consideration matters such
as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character
of evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to 'the
-- 4 of 7 --
5
accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the
accused not being secured at trial, reasonable
apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger
interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations. Bail should normally not be withheld. as a
punishment if, after taking into consideration other factors,
the accused is entitled to the grant of bail. Bail and not jail
is the normal rule. The two paramount considerations,
namely, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and
his tampering with prosecution evidence relate to ensuring
fair trial of a case in the course of justice. Due and proper
weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from
others. There cannot be a set formula in the matter of
granting bail. The. facts and circumstances of each case
will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or
cancelling the bail.
In the case of Sanjay Chandra vs CBI (supra),
Apex Court has observed that:-
In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down
from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure
the appearance of the accused person at his trial by
reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither
punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it can be required to
ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when
called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to
the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and
-- 5 of 7 --
6
that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried
and duly found guilty.
From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention
in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of
great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that
some un-convicted persons should be held in custody
pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in
such cases, `necessity' is the operative test. In this country,
it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty
enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be
punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not
been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be
deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will
tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most
extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of
prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must
not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before
conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would
be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of
disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has
been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-
convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of
imprisonment as a lesson.
Coming to the case in hand, all the offences would entail
maximum punishment upto 7 years of imprisonment and fine.
The alleged tainted money has been recovered during the trap
proceedings. The documents were seized and witnesses have
-- 6 of 7 --
7
been examined and in this way, substantial and material evidence
has already been collected. The trial of the case would take long
to conclude. The applicant / accused is already in custody for
more than 25 days.
Since the accused is a senior citizen having clean
antecedents and has got roots in the society and there is no
material to indicate that he is in a position to tamper with the
evidence or to interfere with the process of justice, he is
admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the
following conditions:-
1. Applicant / accused shall not directly or indirectly contact any
witness of the case.
2. He shall join the investigation as and when required by the
CBI
3.Accused shall not leave the country without permission of the
court.
4. The accused shall surrender his passport before this court.
5. The accused would regularly attend the trial.
The bail application is disposed off in the aforesaid terms.
(Anju Bajaj Chandna)
Principal District & Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI),
Rouse Avenue District Court
New Delhi/24.08.2023
-- 7 of 7 --