Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30764 of 2019 Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- Cbi Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Mishra,Sri V.C. Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri V.C. Mishra and Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Advocates assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant prior to his compulsory retirement, w.e.f., from 11.6.2009 was posted as Commissioner of Income Tax of C.I.T. (A)-I, Noida. The applicant in addition to holding the charge of C.I.T. (A)-I, Noida was holding the charge of the C.I.T. (A)-II, Noida, of C.I.T. (A), Aligarh at Aligarh and was also having the cases assigned to him from Ghaziabad. He submitted that the present F.I.R. has been registered against the applicant on the basis of false complaints, lodged by the Income Tax Department of Revenue after 11.6.2019, when the applicant stood retired from Government Service and was no longer under control of any matter from his former office but the conspiracy done against him by the conspirators, fabricating false evidences. The Chairman C.B.D.T. engineered the mischievous vigilance inspection of work of applicant, concocted mischievous complaint against him and filed it before the CVC and the CBI. He submitted that the F.I.R. is based on misleading and incorrect fact and some material facts have been concealed. So far as the allegation mentioned in the F.I.R. that 104 orders which were found on his computers were not uploaded on ITBA is concerned, it is stated that out of 104 orders 69 orders were in favour of the State without giving any relief to the appellants while out of remaining 36 appeals 7 were partly allowed in favour of the State and only remaining 29 appeals were allowed in favour of the appellants and against the State. It is submitted that no where in the complaint as well as in the F.I.R. it has been even whispered that there is anything wrong or incorrect in the said appellate orders passed by the applicant qua merits or provisions of law. The said orders were passed strictly in accordance with law. The prosecution has also not been able to give a list that in how many cases the State has filed appeals against the appellate orders of the applicant. He argued that the allegation of not uploading the judicial orders on ITBA system and uploading of the same after demitting of office by the applicant as stated cannot be held to be an act which may come under the ambit of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The F.I.R. further conceals that the steno, namely, Amar Das was officially engaged on contractual service provider, who was paid from the Government account as per the standard procedure on submission of bills. Both the complainant, i.e., C.B.D.T. and the C.B.I. in its F.I.R. has made false and incorrect allegations that he was private and personal employee of the applicant whereas in fact the said person was contractually employed by the Government for typing the judicial orders passed in English and the matter was duly borne out from the wage bills file and records of the ZAO, C.B.D.T. So far as recovery of jewelleries, cash and other items made from the house of the applicant are concerned, it is argued that the jewelleries belong to his mother and wife which are old and worn one. The same were left by his mother with his wife for his eldest daughter as petitioner was the eldest son of his parents and the assets like bank deposits, etc. are all legitimate being the arrears of salary received from the Government and no cash has been deposited in the accounts of the petitioner nor there is any money trail in any manner whatsoever, hence the applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that for his illegal acts, the applicant was compulsory retired from service on 11.6.2009 by the competent authority and the F.I.R. which was registered by the C.B.I. on 4.7.2019 against the applicant was on the basis of written complaint dated 1.7.2019 of Ms. Anuja Sarangi, Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance) and C.V.O. C.B.D.T., New Delhi at police station C.B.I. A.C.B. Ghaziabad for the offence under sections 120-B, 420, 468 I.P.C. read with section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). He further submits that on search of the house of the applicant large quantity of jewelries worth Rs. 2,47,05,926/-, Rs. 16,44,970/- cash, bank deposit more than 1.69 crores and the documents by which it transpires that Rs. 50 lacs have been transferred, watches worth Rs. 10 lacs and Rs. 1,21,000/- were recovered from the boutique run by his wife and further some forged bills in the name personal steno, namely, Amar Kumar Das and his wife were also recovered. It has been specifically stated that the applicant is not co-
operating with the investigation and in spite of several notices sent to him, he had not appeared before the investigating agency, hence for the purpose of investigation regarding the recoveries made from the house of the applicant, the arrest of the applicant is necessary. He submits that the applicant was holding a higher post in the income tax department on account of which he is having influence in the department as well as outside the department and there is every likelihood that if the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he would influence the investigation and tamper with the evidence. He pointed out that the applicant is also convicted by the Delhi High Court in a contempt case for 15 days imprisonment. He submits that the applicant want to take advantage by giving the matter a political colour which has no legs to stand.
Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is evident that the applicant was compulsory retired from service on 11.6.2009 by the competent authority and thereafter it was found that some orders which were found on his computers were not uploaded on ITBA for the reasons best known to him. On the search of his house large recoveries were made by the C.B.I and it appears that the applicant has misused his power and position and involved in mal practices while he was in service. There is every likelihood that if the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he would influence the investigation and tamper with the evidence. Hence in my considered opinion he is not entitled for anticipatory bail which is hereby refused.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the recoveries made from his house and bank account, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant Sanjay Kumar Srivastava involved F.I.R. No. 1202019A0004 under sections 420, 468, 120-B I.P.C. read with Section 7 of P.C. Act, police station A.C.B. C.B.I., Ghaziabad U.P.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
However, the applicant will be at liberty to move regular bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C., if so advised.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019/Shiraz