Final Order 3

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. Puneet Kumar Duggal
bail application No. 170/2023
CNR No.DLCT11-0006372023
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
29.08.2023
Appearance : Sh. Praneet Sharma and Sh. Pankaj
Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. PPs for CBI
Sh. Nimish Chib, Sh. Jatin Rana and
Sh.Ajay Mishra, Ld. Counsels for accused
Puneet Kumar Duggal
IO Sunil Kumar in person.
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), applicant / accused Puneet Duggal,
-- 1 of 9 --
2
Joint Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of
India, Ruhi Arora Senior Technical Assistant, Ministry of
Corporate Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and 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
applicant /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
applicant/accused Puneet Duggal. The accused Reshabh Raizada
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 Puneet Kumar Duggal has pleaded
in his bail application that he was working as an official
liquidator appointed by Madras High Court and has been falsely
-- 2 of 9 --
3
implicated in the present case. The accused has clean
antecedents. It is stated that alleged amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as
mentioned in FIR was not recovered by the CBI from the Dwarka
residence of the applicant Puneet Kumar Duggal, in fact nothing
was recovered from the residence of the applicant. It is contended
that applicant in his official position has last dealt with the matter
of M/s Alok Industries in the year 2021 and thereafter the file of
the said matter was forwarded by the applicant to the next
channel / step. The accused has already been suspended from his
job at the Ministry and there is no possibility for the applicant to
tamper with the evidence. Jewellery of Rs.53 Lakhs which was
found in the locker of the applicant belongs to whole family and
the same was purchased from the earnings. Even the bills of the
said jewellery are also available with the applicant. Applicant is
the sole earning member of his family consisting of aged parents
who are suffering from various ailments. The co-accused have
already been released on bail.
On the other hand, CBI has filed written submissions with
the assertions that accused Reshabh Raizada in conspiracy
handed over the bribe amount to applicant / accused Puneet
Kumar Duggal. 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 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
-- 3 of 9 --
4
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.
CBI has further asserted that the applicant was mediating
between the bribe giver i.e Reshabh Raizada and the bribe
accepter accused Manjeet Singh directly as well as through
accused Ruhi Arora. Applicant /accused has also obtained Rs.25
Lakhs from accused Reshabh Raizada for giving favour to M/s
Alok Industries. Jewellery of Rs.53 Lakhs was also found in the
bank locker being maintained by him with Punjab National Bank.
Investigation revealed that accused Manjeet Singh processed the
file received from O/p RD, NWR, Ahmedabad and put up the file
to Ms. Richa Kukreja, DII on 18.07.2023. He shared the said
note with applicant/accused Puneet Kumar Duggal through
whatsapp on 19.07.2023. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Ms.
Ruhi Arora instructed / directed Manjeet Singh to pull back the
file and to put up the revised note as per the convenience of
accused/ applicant Puneet Kumar Duggal and accused Manjeet
Singh pulled back the file and again put up the revised note on
19.07.2023. Accused Manjeet Singh in collusion with
applicant/accused Puneet Kumar Duggal agreed to take bribe for
the purpose of re-examination and also gave pointers which
could be cleared. The investigation is ongoing and evidence are
being collected and statements of witnesses are being recorded.
Some senior officers of the Ministry are to be examined. The
role of other public servants and private persons are being looked
-- 4 of 9 --
5
into to unearth the larger conspiracy in the offence. In view of the
nature and gravity of offence, application for bail be dismissed.
I have heard Sh. Nimish Chib, Advocate for applicant/
accused and Sh. Pankaj Kumar Gupta and Sh.Praneet Sharma,
Ld. Sr. PPs for CBI and also gone through the material on record.
Ld. Counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment of
Supreme Court titled Sanjay Chandra vs CBI, (2012) 1 SCC
40, Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI dated 11.07.2022,
Manoranjan Singh @ Gupta vs. CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218,
Saunny Bathija through wife vs. CBI dated 12.04.2023
(2023:DHC:2493)
Ld. Sr. PP for CBI has relied upon the judgment of Jagan
Mohan Reddy vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, (para 34 & 35),
Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh & Anr. (2012) 3
SSC 64.
The accused /applicant Puneet Kumar Duggal 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
-- 5 of 9 --
6
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
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:-
-- 6 of 9 --
7
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
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
-- 7 of 9 --
8
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
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
about a month.
Since the accused is a government servant 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 as also he
stands suspended, 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
-- 8 of 9 --
9
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/29.08.2023
-- 9 of 9 --