Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CNR No. DLCT11-001136-2025
Bail Matter No. 338/2025
Manish vs. State
FIR No. 42/2025
P.S. Anti Corruption Branch
12.12.2025
ORDER
1. This order will decide the application u/s 483 BNSS for
seeking regular bail filed on behalf of applicant/accused Manish.
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
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
Bail App.338/25 in FIR No.42/25 Manish vs. State Page 1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
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.338/25 in FIR No.42/25 Manish vs. State Page 2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
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 submitted that the
applicant/accused is not a government employee and he was called by
the co-accused through phone; that the applicant/accused was not
aware of the malafide behind the transaction in question; that he
himself was not involved in the act of corruption; that the
applicant/accused has been victimized and that all the allegations
against him are false and baseless in totality. He further submitted
that the plea of the innocence of the applicant/accused is a matter of
trial and further detention of the applicant/accused would only amount
to pre-trial incarceration.
8. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the
applicant/accused is a resident of Delhi with deep roots in society and
clean antecedents and therefore, there is no likelihood of him either
fleeing from justice or absconding. Further, the applicant/accused is
not at flight risk and the investigation qua him has already been
completed and therefore, there is no possibility of tampering with the
evidence.
9. Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused submitted that the
applicant/accused is ready to strictly abide by any conditions imposed
upon him and will not misuse the liberty in any manner if he is
granted bail. He further submitted that the co-accused Suman Virmani
has already been granted bail in the present matter and therefore, he
has requested that the applicant/accused be granted bail.
Bail App.338/25 in FIR No.42/25 Manish vs. State Page 3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
10. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused has relied upon the
following judgments in support of his submissions:-
(i) State through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 31;
(ii) Nagendra vs. King Emperor (AIR 1924 Cal 476, 479, 480 : 25
Cri LJ 732);
(iii) Court On Its Own Motion vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
109 (2003) DLCT 494 ;
(iv) Arnesh Kumar vs. State (2014) 8 SCC 273;
(v) Emperor vs. Hutchinson (AIR 1931 All 356, 358: 32 Cri LJ
1271);
(vi) Niranjan Singh & Anr. vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors.
(1980) 2 SCC 559;
(vii) Sanjay chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40;
(viii) Santosh vs. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 9 SCC 714;
(ix) Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra andanother
CRL. Appeal No. 2787 of 2024;
(x) Madhukar Sadashiv Gomane vs. State of Maharashtra, (2016)
SCC Online Bom 3447;
(xi) Rafique Abdul Malik vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 SCC
Online Bom 493;
(xii) Barun Pramanik & Ors. vs. State 2017 SCC Online Cal 4767;
(xiii) State of Maharashtra vs. Nainmal Punjaji Shah (1969) 3 SCC
904 and
(xiv) Manoranjana Singh vs. CBI (2017 5 SCC 2018).
Submissions of the State:
11. Ld. Substitute PP for the State argued that the
applicant/accused had accepted the bribe amount in front of the panch
witness and hid the same in another room in a file. He further argued
that the applicant/accused had accepted Rs.1,00,000/- on behalf of co-
accused GSTO Smt. Suman Virmani who had called him over phone.
12. Ld. Substitute 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 he may
tamper with official records, including GST return files; hamper the
Bail App.338/25 in FIR No.42/25 Manish vs. State Page 4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
investigation or influence/threaten the complainant and the witnesses,
if granted bail. He also argued that the applicant/accused cannot claim
parity with the co-accused Suman Virmani as she has been granted
bail on the ground of special provision for women. Therefore, he
prayed that the bail be denied.
13. I have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. Counsel
for the applicant/accused and Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State and
perused the charge-sheet as well as the report of the IO.
Analysis and Decision:-
14. Perusal of record reveals that the applicant/accused Manish
was remanded to judicial custody on 14.11.2025 and he has been in
judicial custody since 15.11.2025.
15. As per the case of the prosecution, the applicant/accused
was caught indulging in corrupt activity. He allegedly was called by
the co-accused GSTO Suman Virmani over phone at whose instance,
he accepted the bribe money from the complainant in front of the
panch witness and hid the same in another room in an almirah
wrapped in a file and thereafter, his hand wash was also taken which
turned into pink colour. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused had
argued that the applicant/accused is not a government employee and
there was no demand, acceptance or recovery. Though the
applicant/accused is not a government employee but he is stated to be
working as private person under the co-accused Suman Virmani. He
has accepted bribe money on behalf of co-accused Suman Virmani
and he allegedly even hid the same. This shows his active
involvement in the crime. A person when indulges in act of
corruption, leaves a profound and far reaching impact on the society.
Bail App.338/25 in FIR No.42/25 Manish vs. State Page 5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
There is erosion of public trust and it undermines justice and weakens
the social fabric.
16. It was held in the case of State of Maharashtra through
CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, Mumbai v Balakrishna Dattatrya
Kumbhar (2012) 12 SCC 384, by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
that:
“Corruption is not only a punishable offence but
also undermines human rights, indirectly violating
them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights
violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic
crimes”.
17. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad v Central Bureau of
Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 466, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country
has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar
crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country’s
economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic
offences have serious repercussions on the
development of the country as a whole.”
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also stressed that interest of society
must be borne in mind while deciding whether to grant bail. In the case of
Masroor Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2009 (6) SCALE 358, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed thus :
“There is no denying the fact that the liberty of an
individual is precious and is to be zealously
protected by the Courts. Nonetheless, such a
protection cannot be absolute in every situation.
The valuable right of liberty of an individual and
the interest of the society in general has to be
balanced. Liberty of a person accused of an offence
would depend upon the exigencies of the case. It is
possible that in a given situation, the collective
interest of the community may outweigh the right of
personal liberty of the individual concerned”.
19. Further, the applicant/accused cannot claim parity with the
co-accused Suman Virmani as she fell under the special provision for
Bail App.338/25 in FIR No.42/25 Manish vs. State Page 6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
bail vis-a-vis women. Further, in the judgment of Crl. Appeal No.
8865 of 2025 titled as Sagar vs. State of UP & Anr. Dated 28.11.2025,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that parity with
co-accused persons cannot be the sole criterion for granting bail. The
Court emphasized that while considering bail applications, courts
must undertake comprehensive evaluation of multiple factors
including the role of the accused, gravity of the offence, and specific
circumstances of each case, rather than mechanically applying parity
merely because another co-accused involved in the same offence has
been granted bail. This judgment clarifies that 'parity' in bail matters
connotes equality of position in terms of the role played by the
accused in commission of the offence, and not merely involvement
with the same criminal incident.
20. This court is of the view that since the applicant/accused
has easy access in the GST Department, there are chances that he may
use his contacts in the said department and influence the other
employees to threaten or influence the complainant and other
witnesses. Since, the investigation is still pending, and there are
chances that the applicant/accused may influence the witnesses and
tamper with the evidence and also considering the facts and
circumstances of the case that he was caught red-handed, the
application for regular bail filed on behalf of applicant/accused
Manish stands dismissed.
The application is accordingly disposed off.
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/12.12.2025
Bail App.338/25 in FIR No.42/25 Manish vs. State Page 7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --