REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1148 OF 2023

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal)

No. 295 of 2023]

Central Bureau of Investigation … Appellant

VERSUS

 Santosh Karnani & Anr. … Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1149 OF 2023

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal)

No. 724 of 2023]

Rupesh Balwantbhai Brambhatt  … Appellant

VERSUS

Santosh Karnani & Ors.  …Respondents

JUDGMENT

Surya Kant, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.The Appellants in the two Criminal Appeals,

the   Central   Bureau   of   Investigation   &   Rupesh

Balwantbhai Brambhatt (hereinafter, “complainant”)

respectively, are aggrieved by the order dated 19

th

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 1 of 37

December,   2022   passed   by   the   High   Court   of

Gujarat at Ahmedabad allowing the anticipatory bail

application filed by Respondent No. 1 in connection

with FIR registered as C.R. No. RC0292022A0011 of

2022 before CBI/ACB/Gandhinagar Police Station,

District Gandhinagar for the offence under Section 7

of   the   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988   as

amended in 2018.

BACKGROUND

3.The complainant is a businessman engaged in

the construction business that goes by the name:

Safal   Construction   Pvt.   Ltd.   In   February   2019,

Respondent   No.   1,   an   IRS   Officer,   posted   as

Additional   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax,

Ahmedabad, conducted a survey for the financial

year 2018­19 under Section 133A of the Income Tax

Act,   1961   against   Safal   Construction   Pvt.   Ltd.

whereunder   the   group   disclosed   an   additional

income of Rs. 50 crores. 

4.Thereafter,   in   September   2021,   search   and

seizure   action   was   initiated   by   the   Investigation

Wing   of   Income   Tax   Department,   Ahmedabad

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 2 of 37

against Safal Construction Pvt. Ltd.  Following these

searches, some papers related to the complainant’s

business   were   seized   and   the   Central   Circle,

Range­1 Division initiated the procedure for raising

a demand notice. It is the complainant’s case that

he found out that Respondent No. 1 was handling

his   case   and   would   be   preparing   the   appraisal

memo.   Subsequently,   the   complainant   and

Respondent No. 1 met frequently in connection with

the   case   and   it   is   alleged   that   during   these

interactions, Respondent No. 1 threatened to ruin

the complainant’s business and demanded illegal

gratification.

5.On 29

th

  September, 2022, Respondent No. 1

allegedly contacted the complainant and told him to

meet him on 3

rd

  October, 2022. Accordingly, the

complainant met Respondent No. 1 at the Income

Tax Office where Respondent No. 1 demanded illegal

gratification of Rs. 30 lakhs to help the complainant

with his case. This conversation was recorded by the

complainant on a Digital Voice Recorder which has

been handed over to the investigating authorities

and a transcript of the same has also been provided

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 3 of 37

to   this   Court.   The   complainant   was   directed   to

deposit the amount in the account of one Vardhman

in the Dhara Angadia Firm. 

6.The complainant lodged a complaint the next

morning with ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad city at

07:15   hours   and   a   trap   was   then   laid.   The

complainant’s  employee  was  sent   to the  Angadia

firm  with  the  bribe  money  amounting  to  Rs.  30

lakhs along with personnel from the ACB trap team.

Upon depositing Rs. 30 lakhs with Dhara Angadia

firm, the complainant contacted Respondent No. 1

through WhatsApp call which was recorded by the

ACB team wherein Respondent No. 1 acknowledged

payment of the amount. Immediately thereafter, one

ACB team went to detain and arrest Respondent

No.   1,   who   along   with   some   staff   members,   is

alleged to have physically assaulted the ACB team

and   escaped   from   the   office   due   to   the   ensuing

chaos. It is also claimed that Respondent No. 1,

while   escaping   from   the   office,   handed   over   his

mobile   phone   to   a   colleague.   Simultaneously,

another   ACB   team   recovered   the   bribe   amount

deposited with Dhara Angadia. 

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 4 of 37

7.FIR No. 12/2022 was thus, registered against

Respondent No. 1 under Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2)

of   the   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988   on

4

th

 October, 2022.

8.Owing   to   the   gravity   of   the   case,   on

12

th

 October, 2022, the case was transferred to the

Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter, “CBI”)

and FIR No. 12/2022 was re­registered as C.R. No.

RC0292022A0011 of 2022 under Section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR records

that Respondent No. 1 evaded arrest by the ACB

team   and   was   still   at   large   at   the   time   of

re­registration of the FIR. 

9.Thereafter, a notice under Section 41A, Code of

Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, “CrPC”) was issued

to Respondent No. 1 calling upon him to appear

before   the   CBI   but   Respondent   No.   1   failed   to

respond. On 17

th

 October, 2022, Respondent No. 1

wrote a letter to the Investigating Officer that he had

suffered   severe   anxiety   &   depression   due   to   the

allegations levelled against him and had, thus, gone

to   his   home   state   of   Rajasthan   for   medical

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 5 of 37

treatment. He sought four days’ time to join the

investigation.

10.During investigation Smit Thakkar, owner of

Dhara Angadia firm, informed the authorities that

the illegal gratification was deposited in the account

of one Malav Ajitbhai Mehta. It is also claimed that

prior to the deposit of the amount, Malav Mehta

informed Smit Thakkar that Rs. 30 lakhs would be

deposited   in   the   account   and   would   have   to   be

transferred to another person on the same day. 

11.Another notice under Section 41A was issued

to Respondent No. 1 and again, he failed to appear

before the CBI. On 26

th

 October, 2022, Respondent

No. 1 again sought one week’s time to appear before

the Investigating Officer vide a communication sent

from the email ID of Blue Heaven Hotel, Jaipur.

Subsequently, some more Section 41A notices were

issued to Respondent No. 1, to which he sought

more   time   to   join   the   investigation   on   various

grounds.   He   simultaneously   preferred   an

application for grant of anticipatory bail. 

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 6 of 37

12.By an order dated 3

rd

 November, 2022, the City

Civil   &   Sessions   Court   at   Ahmedabad   rejected

Respondent No. 1’s application for anticipatory bail.

The Special Judge ­ CBI Court No. 3 observed that

Respondent No. 1 instead of cooperating with the

investigating agency, had absconded and got himself

admitted in a hospital in Rajasthan to evade the

process of law. Some of the observations made by

the Special Judge, CBI Court, are to the following

effect:  

“Thus, the ground of ill health pleaded by

the   Learned   Advocate   for   the   applicant

would hold no ground as this Court is of a

candid opinion that the applicant instead

of   cooperating   with   the   Investigating

Agency had absconded and had got himself

admitted   in   hospital   at   his   native   in

Rajasthan with a view to evade the process

of law.

…  ……

In   view   of   the   aforesaid   facts   and

circumstances, this Court is of a candid

opinion that custodial interrogation of the

present   applicant   is   a   must   to   reach   to

unearth   the   larger   conspiracy.   It   is

necessary   to   unveil   the  modus   operandi

adopted by the applicant in committing the

larger   conspiracy   and   without

interrogation,   it   would   be   impossible   to

collect the relevant evidence resulting into

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 7 of 37

incomplete investigation. It is also crystal

clear that the applicant with a view to avoid

arrest has filed the present application and

therefore,   instead   of   cooperating   in   the

investigation have tried to thwart the ∙same

and thus, it can be said that the applicant

is not cooperating in the investigation.

…  ……

This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact

that   investigation   in   the   matter   is   still

under progress and releasing the applicant

at this premature stage would pave way for

the applicant to influence the investigation,

hamper   the   witnesses   and   tamper   the

evidence.”

13.The   Court   eventually   held   that   custodial

interrogation of Respondent No. 1 was necessary to

reach the root of the matter. 

14.Aggrieved by the order of the Special Judge,

CBI   Court,   Respondent   No.   1   applied   for

anticipatory bail before the High Court of Gujarat.

Meanwhile, on 22

nd

  November, 2022, the Court of

Special CBI Judge issued a non­bailable warrant

against Respondent No. 1.

15.The High Court, vide impugned order dated

19

th

  December, 2022, granted anticipatory bail to

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 8 of 37

Respondent No. 1. The High Court observed that

there is a doubt regarding the acceptance of illegal

gratification, as it was deposited in the account of

Vardhman in Dhara Angadia firm and there is no

evidence with respect to acceptance of the amount

by Respondent No. 1. The reasons on the basis of

which   the   High   Court   proceeded   to   grant

anticipatory bail are recorded in paragraph 12 of its

order, which states as follows:  

“12.  This  Court  has  considered  following

aspects;

  (i)   The   FIR   is   registered   on

12.10.2022 for the offence which is

alleged   to   have   taken   place   on

04.10.2022. 

(ii) Learned APP under instructions

of IO is unable to bring on record

any   special   circumstances   against

the applicant. 

(iii)   The   role   attributed   to   the

applicant­ accused; 

(iv) That the applicant is a Additional

Income   Tax   Commissioner   and   no

any   other   criminal   antecedents

against him; 

(v)   There   is   creating   serious   doubt

about demand and acceptance of the

amount; 

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 9 of 37

(vi) There is no discovery or recovery

from the applicant;”

16.The High Court further directed that despite

grant of anticipatory bail, CBI could apply for police

remand of Respondent No. 1 and that if the same

was   granted   by   the   competent   Magistrate,

Respondent No. 1 would be set free immediately

upon completion of the police remand. The relevant

part of the impugned order to this effect reads as

under:

“16. Despite this order, it would be open for

the   Investigating   Agency   to   apply   to   the

competent Magistrate, for police remand of

the applicant. The applicant shall remain

present  before   the   learned   Magistrate   on

the first date of hearing of such application

and on all subsequent occasions, as may

be directed by the learned Magistrate. This

would be sufficient to treat the accused in

the   judicial   custody   for   the   purpose   of

entertaining application of the prosecution

for police remand. This is, however, without

prejudice to the right of the accused to seek

stay   against   an   order   of   remand,   if,

ultimately, granted and the power of the

learned   Magistrate   to   consider   such   a

request   in   accordance   with   law.   It   is

clarified   that   the   applicant   even   if,

remanded   to   the   police   custody,   upon

completion of such period of police remand,

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 10 of 37

shall   be   set   free   immediately,   subject   to

other   conditions   of   this   anticipatory   bail

order.  At the trial, the Trial Court shall not

be   influenced   by   the   prima   facie

observations   made   by   this   Court   while

enlarging  the applicant on bail.   Rule  is

made absolute. Direct service is permitted.”

17.Following   the   High   Court’s   directions,

Respondent   No.   1   joined   the   investigation   and

appeared on three days but is stated to have not

produced his mobile phone(s) though he was asked

to do so repeatedly. The CBI, then, applied for police

remand of Respondent No. 1 and, on 30

th

 December,

2022, the Special Judge, CBI Court No. 3 partly

allowed   the   said   application.   The   Court,   upon

perusal   of   the   case   diary,   observed   that   the

allegations   against   Respondent   No.   1   seem   well­

founded   and   that   remand   is   necessary   for   the

purpose of investigation to collect the missing link of

evidence and to unearth the larger conspiracy. The

application was allowed in the following terms:

“The Accused Mr. Santosh Kumar Karnani

is directed to appear and surrender himself

to   the   custody   of   Investigating   Officer,

CBI /ACB/ Gandhinagar from 10.00 am to

7.00   pm   on   dated   31/12/2022,

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 11 of 37

01/01/2023,   02/01/2023   and   on

03/01/2023,   in   connection   with   RC­

0292022A0011 GNR. It is further directed

that accused shall be set free at 7.00 pm

on respective dates. 

Further as per the direction of Honourable

Gujarat   High   Court,   upon   completion   of

aforesaid period of remand, the accused be

set free upon expiry of remand period and

report   be   submitted   to   this   Court   along

with copies of medical examination paper/

Certificate. The case diary be handed back

to the Investigating Officer. 

The accused is hereby directed to give full

cooperation to Investigating officer to carry

out proper investigation of this case.

The Investigating Officer is hereby directed

to   strictly   adhere   to   the   guidelines   laid

down   by   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   of

India in case of  D.K. Basu vs. State of

W.B.  reported in  AIR 1997 SC 610  and

Honourable Gujarat High Court, while the

accused is in custody and refrain from any

custodial ill­treatment or torture”

18.CBI,   thereafter,   preferred   an   application   for

suspension of the aforesaid order before Special CBI

Court on the ground that they wish to challenge it

before the High Court of Gujarat. Hence, Special

Judge, CBI Court No. 3 stayed operation of its order

till 7

th

  January, 2023. This was later extended by

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 12 of 37

the Court till the final disposal of the Special Leave

Petition (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023.

SUBMISSIONS 

19.Assailing   the   impugned   order   granting

anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 1, Mr. Tushar

Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India on behalf

of the CBI made the following submissions:

i.Considering the gravity and seriousness of

the   offence   and   the   position   held   by

Respondent No. 1, the High Court erred in

exercising   its   discretionary   jurisdiction

under Section 438 of the CrPC;

ii.The   High   Court   did   not   appreciate   the

material collected against Respondent No. 1

which   establishes   a   clear   demand   &

acceptance of bribe by him in view of his

voice recordings seeking an amount of Rs.

30   lakhs   from   the   complainant   and

acknowledging   payment   thereof.   The

relevant   voice   recordings   have   been

analysed and the voices have been identified

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 13 of 37

to be those of Respondent No. 1 and the

complainant; 

iii.The High Court grossly erred in observing

that the FIR was registered after a long delay

on 12

th

 October, 2022. On that day, the CBI

had   only   re­registered   FIR   No.   12/2022

which was initially registered by ACB Police

Station on 4

th

 October, 2022. 

iv.Respondent No. 1’s name was included in

the   ‘Agreed   List’   in   respect   of   Group   A

officers of the Income Tax Department for

the year 2015 and thus, his service record is

not clean;

v.Respondent No. 1 evaded arrest when the

ACB   team   raided   his   office   after   he   had

acknowledged   the   payment   of   the   bribe

money over a WhatsApp call. Respondent

No. 1 & his colleagues used criminal force to

deter the ACB team from effecting arrest and

collecting material evidence. While doing so,

Respondent No. 1 handed over his mobile

phone, which is a crucial piece of evidence,

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 14 of 37

to his colleague to ensure that the same was

not seized by the investigating agency. This

has been recorded in the CCTV cameras of

the office;

vi.The audio recordings and video footage have

been   examined   by   the   Directorate   of

Forensic   Science,   Gujarat   certifying   their

genuineness.   The   report   concludes   that

there are no signs of alteration in the same;

vii.Respondent No. 1 falsely pleaded that he

had taken casual leave from the competent

authority   and   misled   the   investigating

agency   by   sending   a   reply   to   the   notice

issued under Section 41A, CrPC through the

email ID of Blue Heaven Hotel, Jaipur. Upon

investigation, it was found that Respondent

No. 1 had never stayed at that hotel; 

viii.During investigation, reliable evidence has

come on record to show that other Income

Tax   officials   were   hands   in   glove   with

Respondent   No.   1,   which   is   also   evident

from the active role played by some officials

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 15 of 37

in helping Respondent No.1 to avoid arrest

by the ACB on 4

th

 October, 2022. Custodial

interrogation   is   highly   necessary   to

ascertain   the   deeper   plot   at   play   and   to

examine   the   involvement   of   other   Income

Tax officials;

ix.Respondent No. 1 appeared before the CBI

after   the   protection   granted   by   the   High

Court   but   did   not   handover   his   mobile

handsets   which   are   a   crucial   piece   of

evidence and is, thus, not cooperating with

the investigation. Custodial interrogation is

necessary   in   this   case   to   take   the

investigation to its logical conclusion;

x.Reliance has been placed on the judgment of

this Court in  State Rep. By The CBI v.

Anil   Sharma

1

  to   argue   that   “custodial

interrogation   is   qualitatively   more

elicitation­oriented   than   questioning   a

suspect   who   is   well   ensconced   with   a

favourable order under Section 438 of the

1 (1997) 7 SCC 187.

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 16 of 37

Code.   In   a   case   like   this,   effective

interrogation   of   a   suspected   person   is   of

tremendous advantage in disinterring many

useful information and also materials which

would have been concealed. Success in such

interrogation would elude if the suspected

person knows that he is well protected and

insulated by a pre­arrest bail order during

the   time   he   is   interrogated.   Very   often

interrogation   in   such   a   condition   would

reduce to a mere ritual.”;

xi.Reliance   has   also   been   placed   on   the

decisions   in  Prem   Shankar   Prasad   v.

State   of   Bihar

2

,  State   of   Madhya

Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma

3

 and Lavesh

v.   State   (NCT   of   Delhi)

4

  to   urge   that

anticipatory bail should not be granted to an

absconder;

xii.The High Court passed an unusual order

directing that the investigating agency would

2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955.

3 (2014) 2 SCC 171.

4 (2012) 8 SCC 730.

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 17 of 37

be   at   liberty   to   apply   to   the   competent

Magistrate for police remand of Respondent

No. 1 and in the same breath, prevented

custodial interrogation of the main suspect.

20.Supporting the above submissions on behalf of

the   CBI,   Mr.   Maninder   Singh,   learned   Senior

Counsel   appearing   for   the   complainant,   made

following additions: 

i.The High Court ignored the observations &

findings   of   the   learned   Sessions   Court

recorded while rejecting Respondent No. 1’s

application  for   anticipatory   bail.   The   said

Court   had   gone   through   the   material   on

record, including the case papers, and then

only   observed   that   custodial   interrogation

was  necessary to enable the  investigation

agency to reach the core of the matter. 

ii.The   High   Court   failed   to   appreciate   the

unequivocal demand of Rs. 30 lakhs made

by Respondent No. 1, which was recorded by

the complainant on a Digital Voice Recorder

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 18 of 37

and acceptance of that bribe money through

Dhara Angadia Firm.

21.On the other hand, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr.

Shyam   Divan,   learned   Senior   Counsels   strongly

refuted the insinuations made against Respondent

No. 1 and defended the High Court order granting

pre­arrest bail with the following submissions:

i.The allegations levelled against Respondent

No. 1 are false and concocted. Respondent

No.   1   never   raised   any   demand   for

gratification as alleged by the complainant.

Respondent No. 1 had no connection with

the search and seizure action taken against

the   complainant’s   company   in   September

2021   or   with   the   preparation   of   the

appraisal report. Respondent No. 1 is not

the Assessing Officer of the complainant’s

case and the matter is entrusted to some

other officer;

ii.There   is   no   evidence   of   demand   or

acceptance of bribe which are sine qua non

for establishing the offence. In trap cases

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 19 of 37

under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption

Act, the conversation of demand is to be

recorded by the complainant in the presence

of independent panchas and the trap laying

Officer   has   to   ensure   that   there   is   no

possibility of any tampering. In the present

case,   the   voice   recording   of   the   alleged

demand has been done without any police

involvement and thus, holds no evidentiary

value.   The   alleged   deposit   of   the   amount

was   made   in   an   Angadia   firm   which   is

unknown to Respondent No. 1 and cannot

be   termed   as   acceptance   of   bribe.

Respondent No. 1 has no connection with

Malav Ajitbhai Mehta, who is stated to be

the   owner   of   the   account   wherein   the

amount was deposited and Respondent No.

1 was not present at the site of the Angadia

firm;

iii.The   complainant   has   animosity   with

Respondent No. 1 due to the past survey

action taken for the financial year 2018­19

against his company which led to disclosure

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 20 of 37

of additional income of Rs. 50 crores. This

fact has not been disclosed in the FIR. The

complainant   has   falsely   implicated

Respondent No. 1 due to his apprehensions

that Respondent No. 1 will impose huge tax

liability on him & his company;

iv.A perusal of FIR No. 12/2022 shows that it

was registered on 4

th

 October, 2022 at 9:30

pm while the acts of the alleged demand,

laying down of the trap, deposit of money at

Dhara Angadia and the raid at Respondent

No. 1’s office occurred on 3

rd

 October, 2022

and   during   the   daytime   on   4

th

  October,

2022. Additionally, there is no record of the

complainant meeting police officials prior to

the   registration   of   FIR.   The   delay   in

registration of FIR which is more than 24

hours   after   the   alleged   demand   of   illegal

gratification, has not been explained;

v.Only   Respondent   No.   1   is   sought   to   be

arrested by the CBI. The owner or employees

of   Dhara   Angadia   firm   have   not   been

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 21 of 37

arrested and the High Court order granting

anticipatory bail  to  Malav  Mehta   has  not

been   challenged   by   the   CBI   before   this

Court; 

vi.CBI has misused the provisions of Section

41A of the CrPC to arrest Respondent No. 1.

A   bare   perusal   of   the   provision   and   the

guidelines   laid   down   by   this   Court   in

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

5

 suggest

that a notice under Section 41A would be

issued only when the investigating agency

does not require the custody of a person. In

the present case, notices under Section 41A

were issued post the raid conducted by ACB

team at Respondent No. 1’s office by which

time they had decided to arrest him;

vii.As per settled law of this Court, Respondent

No. 1 cannot be termed as an absconder as

he was availing his legal remedies. However,

despite   this,   the   investigating   agency

published notices in the media and pasted

5 (2014) 8 SCC 273.

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 22 of 37

‘Wanted’  posters  with  Respondent   No. 1’s

name,   photo   and   designation   at   various

places,   which   indicates  mala   fides  of   the

investigation agency;

viii.The  bona   fides  of   Respondent   No.   1   are

evident from his conduct post the grant of

anticipatory bail. As directed by the High

Court, Respondent No. 1 appeared before

the CBI on at least four occasions, as and

when   called.   Respondent   No.   1   has   also

voluntarily given his voice samples. Given

the   fact   that   Respondent   No.   1   is

cooperating with the investigation, custodial

interrogation   is   not   required.   The   High

Court  erred  in directing  that,  despite  the

grant of anticipatory bail, the investigating

agency would be at liberty to apply to the

competent   Magistrate   for   police   remand.

This   part   of   the   order   was   to   the

disadvantage of Respondent No. 1 but he

abided by the same and appeared before the

Court   when   the   CBI   applied   for   police

remand; 

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 23 of 37

ix.Respondent No. 1 has an impeccable service

record as is evident from his posting to one

of   the   most   sensitive   assignments   in   the

department. Such postings are only given to

senior   officers   with   clean   images.   His

integrity is beyond doubt and  he  has an

unblemished past record. There is no case of

disproportionate assets against Respondent

No. 1; 

x.Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 as amended in 2018, provides for

a   bar   on   any   enquiry,   inquiry   or

investigation   by   a   police   officer   into   an

alleged offence by a public servant, where

the alleged offence relates to any decision

taken or recommendation made in exercise

of official functions or duties, without the

previous   approval   of   the   competent

authority.   In   this   case,   the   investigating

agency   has   not   complied   with   the

mandatory   procedure   of   Section   17A   and

has initiated investigation on the complaint

without any prior approval of the Competent

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 24 of 37

Authority. The breach of these mandatory

conditions vitiates the proceedings initiated

against Respondent No. 1; 

xi.In these circumstances, the High Court has

rightly   granted   anticipatory   bail   to

Respondent   No.   1   and   has   provided

adequate   reasoning   for   the   same   in

paragraph 12 of the impugned order; 

xii.Cancellation of bail has to be dealt with on a

completely different footing in comparison to

refusal   of   bail   and   ‘cogent   and

overwhelming’   reasons   are   necessary   to

cancel bail once granted. Reliance has been

placed   in   this   regard   on  Dolat   Ram   v.

State   of   Haryana

6

  wherein   a   two­judge

Bench of this Court held that:

“4. Rejection of bail in a non­bailable

case   at   the   initial   stage   and   the

cancellation of bail so granted, have

to be considered and dealt with on

different   basis.   Very   cogent   and

overwhelming   circumstances   are

necessary for an order directing the

cancellation   of   the   bail,   already

6 (1995) 1 SCC 349.

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 25 of 37

granted.   Generally   speaking,   the

grounds   for   cancellation   of   bail,

broadly   (illustrative   and   not

exhaustive)   are:   interference   or

attempt   to   interfere   with   the   due

course of administration of justice or

evasion or attempt to evade the due

course   of   justice   or   abuse   of   the

concession granted to the accused in

any manner. The satisfaction of the

court, on the basis of material placed

on the record of the possibility of the

accused   absconding   is   yet   another

reason  justifying  the  cancellation  of

bail.   However,   bail   once   granted

should   not   be   cancelled   in   a

mechanical   manner   without

considering whether any supervening

circumstances   have   rendered   it   no

longer   conducive   to   a   fair   trial   to

allow   the   accused   to   retain   his

freedom by enjoying the concession of

bail during the trial.”

xiii.No   supervening   circumstances   for

cancellation of bail have been pointed out by

the CBI or the complainant. 

ANALYSIS

22.The law on grant of anticipatory bail has been

summed­up   by   this   Court   in  Siddharam

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 26 of 37

Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra

7

,

after due deliberation on the parameters evolved by

the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia

v. State of Punjab

8

. This Court held thus:

“112. The following factors and parameters

can   be   taken   into   consideration   while

dealing with anticipatory bail:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation

and the exact role of the accused must be

properly   comprehended   before   arrest   is

made; 

(ii)   The   antecedents   of   the   applicant

including   the   fact   as   to   whether   the

accused   has   previously   undergone

imprisonment on conviction by a court in

respect of any cognizable offence; 

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee

from justice; 

(iv)   The   possibility   of   the   accused's

likelihood   to   repeat   similar   or   other

offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made

only   with   the   object   of   injuring   or

humiliating the applicant by arresting him

or her; 

(vi)   Impact   of   grant   of   anticipatory   bail

particularly   in   cases   of   large   magnitude

affecting a very large number of people; 

7 (2011) 1 SCC 694.

8 (1980) 2 SCC 565.

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 27 of 37

(vii) The  courts  must evaluate the  entire

available material against the accused very

carefully.   The   court   must   also   clearly

comprehend the exact role of the accused

in the case. The cases in which the accused

is implicated with the help of Sections 34

and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court

should consider with even greater care and

caution   because   over­implication   in   the

cases   is   a   matter  of   common  knowledge

and concern; 

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant

of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be

struck   between   two   factors,   namely,   no

prejudice should be caused to the free, fair

and full investigation and there should be

prevention of harassment, humiliation and

unjustified detention of the accused; 

(ix)   The   court   to   consider   reasonable

apprehension of tampering of the witness

or   apprehension   of   threat   to   the

complainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always

be considered and it is only the element of

genuineness   that   shall   have   to   be

considered in the matter of grant of bail

and in the event of there being some doubt

as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in

the normal course of events, the accused is

entitled to an order of bail.”

23.In  Sushila   Aggarwal   v.   State   (NCT   of

Delhi)

9

, the Constitution Bench reiterated that while

9 (2020) 5 SCC 1.

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 28 of 37

deciding  applications   for   anticipatory   bail,  courts

should be guided by factors like the nature and

gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the

applicant, and the facts of the case.

24.The   time­tested   principles   are   that   no

straitjacket   formula   can   be   applied   for   grant   or

refusal of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion of

the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors

and   largely   it   will   depend   upon   the   facts   and

circumstances of each case. The Court must draw a

delicate balance between liberty of an individual as

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and

the need for a fair and free investigation, which

must be taken to its logical conclusion. Arrest has

devastating   and   irreversible   social   stigma,

humiliation, insult, mental pain and other fearful

consequences. Regardless thereto, when the Court,

on consideration of material information gathered by

the Investigating Agency, is prima facie satisfied that

there   is   something   more   than   a   mere   needle   of

suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise

the investigation, more so when the allegations are

grave in nature. 

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 29 of 37

25.Keeping these principles in mind, we proceed

to evaluate the rival submissions. At the outset, it is

to be noted that the High Court fell in a factual error

in   observing   that   FIR   was   registered   on

12

th

  October, 2022 for the offence alleged to have

taken place on 3

rd

  and 4

th

  October, 2022. The FIR

was registered by the ACB against Respondent No. 1

on 4

th

  October, 2022 under Sections 7, 13(1) and

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and

was re­registered by CBI on 12

th

 October, 2022.

26.Further, the primary ground assigned by the

High Court to grant anticipatory bail to Respondent

No. 1 is that there was doubt as to the acceptance of

the bribe amount since records of Dhara Angadia

firm had not been produced establishing any link

between Respondent No. 1 & the firm. 

27.The CBI has produced the case diary which

contains the statement made by Smit Thakkar, who

handles Dhara Angadia firm. He has clearly stated

that   Malav   Mehta   was   the   owner   of   Vardhman

account and had informed him that 30 lakhs rupees

would be deposited in his account on 4

th

  October,

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 30 of 37

2022, which in turn had to be sent to someone else.

The   purported   recording   of   conversation   between

the   complainant   and   Respondent   No.   1   wherein

Respondent No. 1 thanked the complainant, after

the deposit of amount in the Vardhman account, is

a reasonable link to connect Respondent No. 1 with

the deposit of illegal gratification in Dhara Angadia

firm,   thereby  prima   facie  showing   acceptance

thereof.

28.Regarding the alleged discrepancy of delay of

more than 24 hours in the registration of FIR, we

find from the material produced before us that the

complainant   started   narrating   the   complaint   at

07:15   hours   and   it   ended   at   08:00   hours   on

4

th

 October, 2022. The panchnama, annexed in the

case diary, provides details of the trap laid by the

ACB and lists all the activities of the ACB team on

that   day,   thereby   dispelling   any   doubts   of  mala

fides on the part of the investigating agencies.

29.We have also gone through the statement of

Mr. Vivek Johri, Assistant Commissioner of Income

Tax who has stated that Respondent No. 1 handed

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 31 of 37

over his mobile phone to him before leaving the

office, which Mr. Johri later threw away. 

30.The   manner   in   which   Respondent   No.   1

forcefully   evaded  his  arrest  with  the   help   of   his

colleagues   and   got   the   evidence   destroyed,   is   a

strong circumstance to indicate his complicity at

this stage though a clear picture would emerge only

on completion of investigation.

31.The nature and gravity of the alleged offence

should have been kept in mind by the High Court.

Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and

must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to

abysmal   loss   to   the   public   exchequer   but   also

tramples   good   governance.     The   common   man

stands deprived of the benefits percolating under

social welfare schemes and is the worst hit.   It is

aptly said, “Corruption is a tree whose branches are

of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere;

and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected

some chairs and stools of authority.” Hence, the

need to be extra conscious.

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 32 of 37

32.From the material placed on record, it seems

that prima facie, the allegations against Respondent

No. 1 cannot be brushed aside lightly at this stage.

There   appears   to   be   a   well­organised   syndicate

comprising officers and officials of the Income Tax

Department, businessmen and Hawala traders, who

are in tandem. Such a nexus needs to be unearthed

through   an   unimpaired   and   unobstructed

investigation.

33.The   contention   that   prior   approval   of

investigation, as mandated under Section 17A of

Prevention of Corruption Act, has not been obtained

and   thus,   the   proceedings   initiated   against

Respondent No. 1 stand vitiated, has no legal or

factual basis. Section 17A merely contemplates that

police officers shall not conduct any enquiry, inquiry

or investigation into any offence alleged to have been

committed by a public servant where the alleged

offence is relatable to any recommendation made or

decision taken in discharge of official functions or

duties,   without   the   previous   approval   of   the

competent authority. The first proviso to the section

states that such approval is not necessary in cases

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 33 of 37

involving arrest of the person on the spot on the

charges of accepting undue advantage.

34.As may be seen, the first proviso to Section

17A   refers   to   cases   wherein   a   public   servant   is

charged with acceptance of an undue advantage or

attempt   thereof.   A   prior   approval   or   sanction   to

investigate such an officer in a trap case is likely to

defeat   the   very   purpose   of   trap   and   the

investigation, which is not the underlying intention

of   the   legislature.   The   investigation   against

Respondent No. 1, being an accused of demanding a

bribe, did not require any previous approval of the

Central   Government.   That   apart,   the   accusation

against Respondent No. 1 does not revolve around

any recommendations made or decisions taken by

him in his quasi­judicial or administrative capacity.

35.It is true that cancellation of bail must be done

only   for   cogent   and   overwhelming   reasons.

Nevertheless,   setting   aside   an   unjustified   order

granting bail is distinct from cancellation of bail.

This Court would not, invariably intervene into the

judicial discretion exercised by the High Court while

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 34 of 37

granting bail to an accused. All that to be ensured is

that   the   High   Court   exercises   its   discretion

judiciously,   cautiously   and   strictly   in   conformity

with the basic principles laid down by this Court

from time to time in a series of decisions.

36.The Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal

(supra) observed that:

“92.11.   The   correctness   of   an   order

granting   bail,   can   be   considered   by   the

appellate or superior court at the behest of

the State or investigating agency, and set

aside on the ground that the court granting

it did not consider material facts or crucial

circumstances.”

SUMMATION

37.Having considered the nature of allegations,

material on record and the settled legal principles

on grant of anticipatory bail, we are of the view that,

howsoever hard or harsh it may be, the High Court

ought   to   have   refrained   itself   from   extending

protection against arrest to Respondent No. 1 in

exercise   of   its   discretionary   jurisdiction   under

Section 438 of the CrPC. 

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 35 of 37

38.Assuming Respondent No. 1 had some valid

apprehensions that the actions of ACB (State Police)

were actuated with extraneous reasons, he can no

longer   say   so   once   the   investigation   has   been

transferred to CBI. We do not find any allegation of

personal   vendetta,   victimisation,   bias   or   ulterior

motive against the Central Agency. In any case, CBI

is   expected   to   carry   out   a   free,   fair   and

dispassionate investigation with faithful observance

to the rights of an accused, who is subjected to

custodial interrogation.

39.The   appeals   are,   accordingly,   allowed.   The

impugned judgment and order of the High Court

dated  19

th

  December,  2022  is  set  aside  and  the

anticipatory bail application of Respondent No. 1 is

dismissed.   As   a   consequence   thereto,   the   order

dated 30

th

  December, 2022 passed by the Special

Judge,   CBI   Court   No.   3   partly   allowing   CBI’s

application for remand is also set aside. 

40.We clarify that this Court has expressed only

prima facie opinion on the merits of the allegations

for the limited purpose to refuse or grant pre­arrest

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 36 of 37

bail. If Respondent No. 1 moves an application for

grant of regular bail before an appropriate Court,

the same shall be considered on its own merits and

in   accordance   with   law,   uninfluenced   by   the

observations made hereinabove.

41.The   appeals   are   disposed   of   in   the   above

terms.

42.Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed

of as well.

…....…………………..J.

(SURYA KANT)

…....…………………..J.

(J.K. MAHESHWARI)

New Delhi;

April 17, 2023.

Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                 Page 37 of 37