[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 9 April, 2025
2025:UHC:2850
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
1st Bail Application No. 2537 of 2024
Rajesh Kumar ......Applicant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation ......Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Ayush Kaushik, Ms. Gurbani Singh, learned counsels for the Applicant
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel on behalf of CBI.
H on'ble Ashish N a it ha ni, J ( Ora l)
This is a bail application filed by the applicant accused Rajesh
Kumar, son of Late Shri Nain Singh, aged about 59 years, resident of 18,
Type-IV 5A, BHEL Quarters, Ranipur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, seeking his
release in connection with FIR No. RC0072024A0012 dated 23.09.2024,
registered at Police Station: Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption
Branch, Dehradun, for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The applicant was arrested on 25.09.2024 following a trap laid by
the CBI pursuant to a complaint lodged by one Arvind Kumar, a contractual
security supervisor working at Kendriya Vidyalaya, BHEL, Ranipur,
Haridwar.
3. According to the complaint, Rajesh Kumar, by virtue of his
official position as Principal, was coercing the complainant to collect a
monthly sum of Rs. 10,000 from each of the outsourced support staff,
including guards, gardeners, and cleaning personnel, employed through the
1
2025:UHC:2850
same agency, under the threat that failure to do so would result in the
termination of their services.
4. Arvind Kumar had been working at Kendriya Vidyalaya for over
a decade and was additionally entrusted with supervisory responsibilities over
the other contractual workers.
5. He alleged that Rajesh Kumar repeatedly threatened him and
demanded that he collect a monthly bribe from all such workers and hand it
over to the Principal. Refusing to succumb to such coercion, the complainant
filed a formal written complaint on 21.09.2024 with the CBI.
6. Acting upon the said complaint, the CBI initiated verification
proceedings on 23.09.2024, during which Arvind Kumar was equipped with a
Sony digital voice recorder carrying an ADATA 15GB SD card.
7. The complainant entered the office of the Principal while the
device was on, and although the first attempt to record the conversation failed
due to the presence of other persons, the second attempt led to a successful
recording in which the Principal allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 80,000,
later reducing it to Rs. 50,000-60,000 for a period covering 10 to 11 months
of continued employment of eight workers.
8. The recorded conversation was verified by the CBI team and
found to contain both the complainant's and the accused's voices, which were
later authenticated by witnesses and school staff.
2
2025:UHC:2850
9. On 24.09.2024, a trap was laid at Hotel Stallion in Shivalik
Nagar, Haridwar, where the complainant was introduced to the CBI trap team
and two independent witnesses an officer from Punjab National Bank and an
Administrative Officer from LIC.
10. The complainant was again given a digital voice recorder and Rs.
30,000 in pre-treated currency notes. The complainant met the accused that
evening inside the school premises and, as per the plan, handed over the
money.
11. The CBI team, after being alerted, entered the premises,
identified the Principal, and recovered the money from his person,
specifically from the right rear pocket of his trousers, tucked within a wallet.
Sodium carbonate hand wash tests yielded positive results, confirming that
the accused had come into contact with the treated money.
12. Rajesh Kumar was arrested in the early hours of 25.09.2024 and
has remained in judicial custody since.
13. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for
the CBI. Perused the record.
14. The learned counsel for the applicant has asserted that he has
been falsely implicated in the case owing to internal politics and personal
vendetta within the school. According to him, the complainant, Arvind
Kumar, acted under the influence of certain disgruntled teaching and non-
teaching staff who resented the applicant's firm administrative style.
3
2025:UHC:2850
15. He has argued that just before his impending retirement in June
2025, such an incident was orchestrated to tarnish his image and reputation.
16. The applicant has further stated that he had, on an earlier
occasion, lent Rs. 10,000 to the complainant for his daughter's admission and
that the money allegedly recovered from him was a repayment of that
personal loan.
17. Although the complainant initially denied any loan transaction
during the post-trap proceedings, he later admitted to having borrowed the
amount, which the applicant submits is crucial to understanding the context
of the monetary exchange.
18. The applicant has also stressed that all material and documentary
evidence has already been collected and that no useful purpose would be
served by his continued detention.
19. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in
Vikas Chawla v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 382, where the
Court granted bail in a corruption matter primarily on the ground that all
evidence was already in possession of the investigating agency.
20. He has also raised procedural objections under Section 35 of the
BNSS (earlier Section 41A of CrPC), arguing that no prior notice was issued
to him before his arrest despite the offence being punishable with
imprisonment up to seven years. Citing the Supreme Court's rulings in
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, he
contends that arrest in such cases without following due procedure is illegal.
4
2025:UHC:2850
21. Moreover, the applicant has alleged that the charge sheet filed on
22.11.2024 is incomplete, as it was submitted without the CFSL report and
the mandatory sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act. He
argues that the charge sheet was filed in a hurried manner to defeat his right
to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. He further emphasizes his clean
antecedents, his age, and the absence of any risk of tampering with evidence
or fleeing from justice.
22. The learned counsel for CBI, Mr. Piyush Garg, however, has
contested the bail plea through a detailed counter-affidavit filed by Inspector
Sharad Chandra Gusain, the Investigating Officer.
23. It has been categorically stated that the FIR was registered only
after the pre-trap verification confirmed the demand for illegal gratification.
The CBI emphasizes that the entire trap was executed with strict procedural
compliance and in the presence of two independent public servants.
24. The recorded conversations, both during verification and during
the actual trap, were corroborated not only by the complainant but also by
school employees Vishal Soni and Sunil Kumar, who identified the accused's
voice. The agency maintains that the accused was caught red-handed in
possession of the bribe amount and that sodium carbonate testing confirmed
the handling of tainted money. The agency also points to the seizure of CCTV
footage from the school premises, further substantiating the prosecution's
version of events.
25. Regarding procedural lapses alleged by the applicant, the CBI
submits that the reasons for the arrest were properly documented in the arrest
memo in accordance with Section 35 of BNSS. The agency also cites
5
2025:UHC:2850
judgments from the Delhi and Gauhati High Courts, affirming that the
absence of a CFSL report at the time of filing the charge sheet does not
render it incomplete, and that additional documents may be submitted
subsequently.
26. The CBI clarifies that a prosecution sanction has since been
obtained and filed before the Special Court. As the case is now at the stage of
framing of charge, the agency expresses apprehension that if the applicant is
released on bail at this stage, there is a genuine risk that he may influence or
intimidate key witnesses who were his subordinates during his tenure.
27. The CBI, therefore, urges the Court to consider the gravity of the
offence, the status of the accused as a public servant in a position of
influence, and the stage of the proceedings, to reject the bail application in
the interest of justice.
28. It is their contention that this is not merely a case of documentary
evidence but involves direct evidence in the form of voice recordings, trap
proceedings, recovery, and corroborative witness testimony, which
collectively establish a strong prima facie case against the applicant Rajesh
Kumar.
29. This Court has undertaken a careful and holistic assessment of
the factual matrix, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the present stage
of the criminal proceedings, the statutory framework governing offences
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the applicable judicial
precedents cited by both sides.
6
2025:UHC:2850
30. The reasoning proceeds from a deliberate and constitutionally
anchored endeavour to balance the imperatives of safeguarding personal
liberty on one hand and ensuring the integrity and credibility of the criminal
justice system on the other, particularly where the allegations pertain to
corruption involving a public servant occupying a position of trust and
authority.
31. At the very outset, this Court has taken note of the settled legal
position that a prosecution under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act mandates the establishment of foundational facts of demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant. The Constitution
Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, has
crystallised the evidentiary threshold required under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of the said Act.
32. This Court notes that while demand is a sine qua non, the
requirement of direct oral evidence is not absolute. The Court in Neeraj Dutta
authoritatively affirmed that such foundational facts may also be proved
through circumstantial evidence, including corroborative material such as
audio recordings, trap proceedings, as well as the testimony of independent
witnesses.
33. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court is satisfied that the element of demand has been prima facie
established. The pre-trap verification dated 23.09.2024, which was recorded
and subsequently corroborated by two independent witnesses and school
staff, reveals that the applicant initially demanded a sum of ₹80,000, which
was subsequently negotiated down to ₹50,000-₹60,000 in relation to the
continuation of service of eight contractual employees.
7
2025:UHC:2850
34. The statement of the complainant, when read in conjunction with
the verification proceedings and voice identification by public witnesses,
constitutes a robust evidentiary basis to infer the existence of demand.
35. Though the post-trap conversation dated 24.09.2024 may not
contain an express reiteration of the earlier demand, such absence does not by
itself negate the offence. The acceptance of ₹30,000 in phenolphthalein-laced
currency is not in dispute.
36. Once acceptance is established and a proven demand precedes it,
the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act becomes operative. As
clarified in Neeraj Dutta, such inferential deduction is legally permissible and
adequate for the Court to presume that the gratification was accepted as a
motive or reward unless rebutted.
37. The Court has further examined the nature and quality of the trap
proceedings conducted on 24.09.2024. The accused was apprehended in
possession of ₹30,000 in tainted currency, recovered from his person in the
presence of two independent witnesses. The sodium carbonate hand wash test
of the applicant returned positive, conclusively indicating contact with the
bribe amount.
38. In addition, CCTV footage corroborates the physical presence of
both the complainant and the accused at the relevant place and time.
39. The defence of the applicant that the amount was a repayment of
a personal loan was noted by the Court. However, the sequence of events,
including the complainant's initial denial and subsequent partial admission
allegedly made under pressure regarding a prior loan of ₹10,000, renders
8
2025:UHC:2850
such explanation unconvincing. The version set up by the applicant appears
to be an afterthought and does not inspire confidence when tested against the
entirety of the material on record.
40. Insofar as the procedural objection raised by the applicant
regarding non-compliance with Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (earlier Section 41A of the CrPC) is concerned, this Court finds no
merit in the same.
41. The arrest in the present case was not by way of a routine
summoning but was occasioned during a duly sanctioned and executed trap
operation.
42. The arrest memo records the grounds and reasons for arrest in
compliance with the procedural safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar v.
State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, and reaffirmed in Satender Kumar Antil v.
CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. The arrest, in this context, was not mechanical but
necessitated by the detection of a cognizable offence, committed in the
presence of independent witnesses and established through contemporaneous
material evidence.
43. A further consideration which weighs against the grant of bail is
the position held by the accused at the relevant time. As Principal of a
Kendriya Vidyalaya, the applicant exercised considerable administrative
authority over the very witnesses whose testimony would be central to the
trial.
44. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the applicant
may influence or intimidate such witnesses is not speculative. It is grounded
9
2025:UHC:2850
in the practical realities of hierarchical institutional structures, where implicit
deference and hierarchical dependency are often at play. The possibility of
interference with the trial process, at the stage of pre-charge evidence, cannot
be lightly disregarded.
45. This Court does not lose sight of the constitutional primacy
accorded to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. However,
personal liberty, though fundamental, is not absolute. Where credible material
discloses a pattern of systemic abuse of official position to extract unlawful
benefit, such liberty must yield to the broader imperative of justice and
institutional accountability.
46. Corruption by a public servant is not merely a private wrong; it
corrodes public trust, undermines institutional integrity, and has a cascading
effect on governance and service delivery. The offence alleged is therefore
one of serious public concern and calls for a cautious and calibrated judicial
approach.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no justifiable
ground to grant bail at this stage. The application stands rejected.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated: 09.04.2025
NR/
10
[ad_2]
Source link