Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CNR No. DLCT11-001133-2025
Bail Matter No. 339/2025
Bail application of accused Suman Virmani
State Vs. Vivek Kumar Sharma & Ors.
FIR No. 42/2025
P.S. Anti Corruption Branch
28.11.2025
ORDER
1. This order will decide the application u/s 483 BNSS for
seeking regular bail filed on behalf of applicant/accused Suman
Virmani.
Brief Facts:
2. The above mentioned case was registered on 14.11.2025
on the complaint of Mr. Abhishek Tiwari, Advocate, wherein he
stated that he works as a legal consultant for Matrix Freight Systems
Private Limited and between June 2022 to August 2023, total 12 GST
refund files were submitted through the accountant of the company
and all required compliances were completed. He further stated in his
complaint that six GST files had already been cleared and the
company had received GST refund of about Rs.1 crore, while GST
return of about Rs. 2 crores remained pending. He also stated that one
GST file, having a refund amount of Rs.26.88 lakhs, was pending for
approval for the last 6-7 days in the office of Shri Gaurav Yadav,
Joint Commissioner, GST. The complainant met GSTO Shri Vivek
Sharma, who informed him that his remaining GST refund files would
be approved only upon payment of illegal gratification. He informed
that 1% of the refund amount goes to the Joint Commissioner and the
remaining amount is distributed among departmental staff. GSTO
Vivek Sharma further informed that usually 6% of the GST refund
Bail App.339/25 in FIR No.42/25 State vs. Vivek Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 1 of 9
-- 1 of 9 --
amount is taken, but since the complainant is known to him, he would
take 5% i.e. Rs. 1.40 lakhs in round figure for the approval of pending
GST return file of Rs. 26.88 lakhs.
Entrapment Proceedings:-
3. Pursuant to the said complaint, a raiding party was
constituted. The raiding party along with the complainant and the
Panch witness visited the office of GST Department, Vyapar Bhawan,
ITO, Delhi and at the 6th floor, the complainant met with the accused
GSTO Vivek Sharma in the presence of Panch witness, who stated
that he will not take bribe money in the presence of an unknown
person. The Panch witness exited the office. A few minutes later, the
complainant informed that the accused had demanded and accepted
Rs.40,000/- and directed that the remaining Rs.1,00,000/- be given to
GSTO Smt. Suman Virmani. The raiding team apprehended GSTO
Vivek Sharma red-handed, and Rs.40,000/- was recovered from the
drawer of his desk.
4. Thereafter, the raiding team reached the 9th floor. The
complainant along with Panch witness entered the office of GSTO
Smt. Suman Virmani, who called Manish, a private person, and
instructed that the remaining bribe money of Rs.1,00,000/- be handed
over to him. The complainant handed over Rs.1,00,000/- to Manish,
who accepted the same. Manish was apprehended, and the bribe
money was recovered at his instance. Smt. Suman Virmani was also
apprehended subsequently.
5. On the basis of the said facts and circumstances, FIR was
registered and all three accused persons were arrested and remanded
to judicial custody.
Bail App.339/25 in FIR No.42/25 State vs. Vivek Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 2 of 9
-- 2 of 9 --
Submissions on behalf of the applicant/accused:
6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the
applicant/accused has been arrested on 14.11.2025 and has been
falsely implicated in the present case.
7. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused further submitted
that the applicant/accused is an old lady, aged about 57 years and she
is a government employee posted as GST Officer at Ward No. 95,
GST Office, Vyapar Bhawan, Delhi. He further submitted that during
her tenure of services, the applicant/accused has showed exceptional
performance and dedication towards her duties. He also submitted
that the applicant/accused has deep roots in the society and has clean
antecedents and has never been found guilty for violating any law of
land and therefore, there is no likelihood of her either fleeing from
justice or absconding.
8. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that there
is no evidence against the applicant/accused of any demand or
acceptance of alleged illegal gratification and she is being roped in the
present case merely on the basis of alleged disclosure of co-accused
persons. He further submitted that when allegedly, the complainant
and the panch witness had entered the office of the applicant/accused,
no conversation whatsoever regarding demand of any illegal
gratification took place between them and no bribe amount was ever
offered to the applicant/accused nor did she demand any such amount
at any stage of trap proceedings and it is only the disclosure statement
of co-accused Manish, a private person working as an office boy in
the office of the applicant/accused, without any supporting evidence,
that he had received the alleged amount at the behest of the
Bail App.339/25 in FIR No.42/25 State vs. Vivek Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 3 of 9
-- 3 of 9 --
applicant/accused.
9. He further submitted that nothing incriminating was seized
from the applicant/accused; no recovery was made from her; no
phenolphthalein was ever found or sodium carbonate solution test was
conducted on the applicant/accused which reflects her innocence.
10. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused also submitted that
there is no proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by
the applicant/accused in the entire case. He has relied upon the case
of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (2023) 4 SCC 324, wherein, it has been held
that the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove that there is a
demand of illegal gratification and subsequent acceptance as a matter
of fact.
11. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused further submitted
that the applicant/accused did not have the jurisdiction over GST
refund file of the complainant as she was authorised to approve GST
refund claims only up to Rs. 10 Lakh whereas the complainant’s GST
refund claim was Rs. 26.88 Lakh which fell out of the purview of the
present applicant/accused and within the jurisdiction of the Joint
Commissioner, GST Department and therefore, the applicant/accused
was not competent or empowered to process or approve the said GST
claim to favour the complainant.
12. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the
entire allegations as levelled by the complainant are against the co-
accused person and there is no evidence to show that the
applicant/accused conspired or had any common intention with the co-
accused persons for any corrupt practices.
Bail App.339/25 in FIR No.42/25 State vs. Vivek Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 4 of 9
-- 4 of 9 --
13. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused also submitted that
the applicant/accused has been a government servant for more than
two decades and hence, there is no possibility of absconding nor the
applicant/accused is at flight risk and the entire evidence,
documentary and electronic, has already been seized by the
investigating agency and therefore, there is no possibility of tampering
with the evidence.
14. Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused submitted that the
applicant/accused is ready to strictly abide by any conditions imposed
upon her and will not misuse the liberty in any manner if she is
granted bail. Therefore, he has requested the applicant/accused be
granted bail.
15. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the
applicant/accused has relied upon the following judgments:
i. Yudhveer Singh Yadav vs. CBI, 2024 SCC Online DEL 7070;
ii. Aishwarya Attrey vs. CBI, 2022 SCC Online DEL 2067;
iii. Khaleel Ahmed vs. State of Karnataka, (2015) 16 SCC 350;
iv. Yashwant vs. State of Karnataka,2021 SCC Online KAR 11955
v. Neeraj Dutta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 4 SCC 731.
Submissions of the State:
16. Ld. PP for the State argued that the complainant has
levelled direct allegations against the applicant/accused in his
statement under Section 183 BNSS that on 14.11.2025, in the
presence of panch witness and the complainant, the applicant/accused
called Manish, a private person, and instructed the complainant to pay
bribe money of Rs.1,00,000/- to him and on her instructions, the
Bail App.339/25 in FIR No.42/25 State vs. Vivek Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 5 of 9
-- 5 of 9 --
complainant gave Rs. 1,00,000/- to Manish who was apprehended and
the bribe money was recovered at his instance
17. Ld. Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
investigation is at initial stage; that though no recovery is to be made
from the applicant/accused but there is a likelihood that she may
tamper with official records, including GST return files; hamper the
investigation or influence/threaten the complainant and the witnesses,
if granted bail. Therefore, he prayed that the bail be denied.
18. I have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. Counsel
for the applicant/accused and Ld. PP for the State and perused the
charge-sheet as well as the report of the IO.
Analysis and Decision:-
19. As per the case of the prosecution, the applicant/accused
was caught indulging in corrupt activity. She allegedly demanded the
bribe money from the complainant and accepted the same through co-
accused Manish. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had argued
that there was no demand, acceptance or recovery. However, this fact
can only be decided during trial.
20. Perusal of record reveals that the applicant/accused Suman
Virmani has been in judicial custody since the date of her arrest on
14.11.2025.
21. The IO had argued that the investigation is in its nascent
stage and CDRs of the applicant/accused have to be obtained and the
other files dealt with by the applicant/accused in her GST office have
to be obtained to investigate further into the matter. Even though the
investigation is in its nascent stage, but it is an admitted position on
Bail App.339/25 in FIR No.42/25 State vs. Vivek Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 6 of 9
-- 6 of 9 --
behalf of the prosecution that police remand of the applicant/accused
has not been sought which shows that she is not required for
investigation purposes.
22. Also, the applicant/accused is a woman and falls within the
special provision where discretion can be exercised to release her on
bail. The applicant/ accused is stated to be 57 years old and has held
government office for more than two decades. Thus, it seems that she
would have deep roots in the society and there is little doubt that she
will flee from justice.
23. There is a presumption of innocence of the accused and the
applicant/accused cannot be detained as a punitive measure. In the
case of Siddharam Saltingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra
(2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“3. The society has a vital interest in grant or refusal
of bail because every criminal offence is the offence
against the State. The order granting or refusing bail
must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting
interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and
the interest of the society. The law of bails dovetails
two conflicting interests namely, on the one hand,
the requirements of shielding the society from the
hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality
of repeating the same crime while on bail and on the
other hand absolute adherence of the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding
presumption of innocence of an accused until he is
found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty.
...
127. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental
right and it should be curtailed only when it
becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case."
24. Further, in the case of Moti Ram Vs. State of M.P. (1978)
4 SCC 47, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
Bail App.339/25 in FIR No.42/25 State vs. Vivek Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 7 of 9
-- 7 of 9 --
“The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave.
Defendants presumed innocent are subjected to the
psychological and physical deprivations of jail life,
usually under more onerous conditions than are
imposed on convicted defendants. The jailed
defendant loses his job if he has one and is
prevented from contributing to the preparation of
his defence. Equally important, the burden of his
detention frequently falls heavily on the innocent
members of his family.”
25. In the case of Sanjay Chandra vs CBI Crl. Appeal No.2178
of 2011 decided on 23 November, 2011, it was held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court 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 that every man is deemed to be innocent until
duly tried and duly found guilty.”
26. From the above judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court, it is clear that the basic rule is bail and jail is an exception
except where circumstances suggest that the accused may flee from
justice or thwart the course of justice or repeat offences or intimidate
witnesses.
27. Applicant/accused has been in judicial custody since
14.11.2025 and admittedly not required in investigation. There is no
allegation that there is likelihood of accused fleeing away from the
judicial process. The pendency of remaining investigation will not be
affected by the release of the applicant/accused in any manner. In
such circumstances, I am of the view that bail cannot be denied to the
accused as a punishment when accused would be facing the trial in
Bail App.339/25 in FIR No.42/25 State vs. Vivek Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 8 of 9
-- 8 of 9 --
accordance with law. Therefore, the application for bail is allowed.
Applicant/accused Suman Virmani is directed to be released on bail,
on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one
surety in the like sum and subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall surrender her passport in this court and shall
not leave the country without prior permission of this Court.
b. The applicant shall not misuse the benefit of bail by indulging in
commission of similar offences in future.
c. The applicant shall not contact the complainant or any of the
witnesses of the case or extend, directly or indirectly, any
inducement or threat to the witnesses.
d. The applicant shall not visit the GST office where she was
posted.
e. The applicant shall appear before this Court on each and every
date of hearing.
f. The applicant shall intimate this Court in case of change of
his/her address.
If the applicant/accused is found to be violating any of the
above conditions, the State shall be at liberty to move an application
for cancellation of bail.
The application is accordingly disposed off.
Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for his intimation and compliance. Copy of this order
be also sent to the concerned IO.
Copy of this order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for
applicant/accused, as prayed.
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New Delhi/28.11.2025
Bail App.339/25 in FIR No.42/25 State vs. Vivek Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 9 of 9
-- 9 of 9 --