CA Involved in Bribery Case Gets Bail by Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court in the matter of Anuj Gupta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation grants bail to a Chartered Accountant involved in Bribery case.

The Applicant, is a Chartered Accountant, is stated to be a resident of Delhi, having deep roots in society.

The Issue is that a qualified Chartered Accountant (CA), was arrested on 31.12.2021, whereafter he was remanded to police custody till 08.01.2022, and ever since 09.01.2022, he is in judicial custody. It was further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the applicant’s phone was on surveillance, however no transcript of any conversation has been placed on record to back-up the allegation that the applicant was aware of the facts or involved in any other illegal activity. Rather, there is no record of any call between the applicant and the accused/Akil Ahmad, except one call which was made by the applicant at the instance of the CBI officials and another call which was received by the applicant from Akil Ahmad during the trap proceedings, after recovery of the bribe money, which is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.

A bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No.RC2182021A0007 registered under Sections 7/8/9/10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) read with Section 120B IPC at P.S. CBI/AC-III, Delhi.

The Coram found out that on the day of the trap, two calls were exchanged between the applicant and the accused/Akil Ahmad. At the time of first call, the applicant stated ‘samaan mil gaya’, to which Akil Ahmad responded by saying ‘ok’. Thereafter, Akil Ahmad called back the applicant, at which time the applicant stated ‘20 lakh mil gaye’ and Akil Ahmad again replied with ‘ok’. Further, the applicant was caught red-handed with the bribe amount of Rs.20 lacs and certain jewellery articles were also seized. Learned SPP contended that the case at hand involves a larger conspiracy, as the accused/Akil Ahmad was in the habit of demanding bribe and the applicant was his CA. He also submitted that during investigation, the transcripts of WhatsApp chat messages have been recovered, although on a specific query, it was informed that there is no mention of any bribe in the same.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant re-emphasised that the applicant had no knowledge that what was handed over to him by accused/Sunil Kumar Verma for the accused/Akil Ahmad was actually bribe money. He urged that there is no evidence on record/document to show that the applicant was aware of the source of the money brought by accused/Sunil Kumar Verma or the fact that it was a payment towards ‘bribe’.

The CBI has not placed on record any transcript of conversation between the applicant and the accused/Akil Ahmad. Further, it was submitted that the place where raid was conducted and from where jewellery articles were recovered is, in fact, the registered office of the applicant’s brother, who runs a jewellery business and has already claimed the articles as belonging to him.

On 30.12.2021, Akil Ahmad demanded illegal gratification from one Retnakaran Sajilal, General Manager, M/s Dilip Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as to ‘DBL’) with respect to the project executed by DBL in Karnataka. In pursuance, accused/Devendra Jain, Executive Director, DBL approved payment of Rs.20 lacs for accused/Akil Ahmad, whereafter the said amount was delivered to the office of the present applicant by accused/Sunil Kumar Verma on the instructions of accused/Mahim Pratap Singh Tomar. During the trap proceedings, the aforesaid amount was recovered from a black colour bag lying beneath a table of the cabin/office belonging to the present applicant.

On a specific query from the learned SPP for CBI as to whether there exists any call or transcript of any conversation between the applicant and the accused/Akil Ahmad, apart from the calls exchanged during the trap proceedings, the answer was given in the negative. Concededly, even in the recovered WhatsApp messages, no mention of any bribe or bribe amount was found.

The High Court rule out that ” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to release the present applicant on bail during the pendency of the trial. Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/ Duty M.M./concerned Court and also subject to the following further conditions :-

i) The applicant shall join the investigation as and when directed to do so.

ii) At the time of furnishing the bail bonds, the applicant shall furnish his mobile number which he would keep operational at all times during the pendency of the trial and in case of change of contact/residential details, the same shall be promptly brought on the record.

iii) The applicant shall not directly/indirectly try to get in touch with any prosecution witness or even attempt to tamper with the evidence.

iv) The applicant shall regularly appear before the concerned Court during the pendency of the trial.

v) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if not already done. The applicant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of India without prior permission of the Trial Court.”

The bail application is disposed of in the above terms.

The Judgment was made by Hon’ble Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri.

The Advocate for Petitioner is Mr. Amit Sharma and for Respondent is Mr. Nikhil Goel.

To Read Judgment Download PDF Given Below: