Arvind Kumar Agarwal @ Arvind Agarwal and Binod Kumar Agarwal V. Union of India through CBI

A.B.A./3330/2022

AI Insights

The case involves two petitioners, Arvind Kumar Agarwal and Binod Kumar Agarwal, who sought anticipatory bail in connection with a corruption case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegations against them included acting as middlemen between public servants and private entities, demanding high fees for favorable tax reassessments, and conspiring to transfer companies to jurisdictions that would allow for favorable tax assessments. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opposed the bail applications, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the potential for influencing public servants.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801512 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR; CHANDANA KUMARI; PRASHANT PALLAV; SHIVANI JALUKA
• Assessee Lawyers: INDRAJIT SINHA; INDRAJIT SINHA
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Conspiracy; Corruption; Income Tax; Public servants; Private persons
• Section: 12; 264; 13(2); 7; 13(1)(d); 120-B; 120-B

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3260 of 2022 Arvind Kumar Agarwal @ Arvind Agarwal, aged about 47 years, son of Sri Mohan Lal Agarwal, K.B. Road, Near Gaytri Mandir, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh … Petitioner -Versus- Union of India through CBI … Opposite Party With A.B.A. No. 3330 of 2022 Binod Kumar Agarwal, aged about 63 years, Son of Shree Shyam Lal Agarwal, Resident of 174-A, Maniktalla, Main Road, Ekta Residency, Flat No.11-CD, P.O. Kankurgachi, P.S. Phoolbagan, Kolkata (West Bengal) … Petitioner -Versus- Union of India through CBI … Opposite Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : M/s Indrajit Sinha, Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Abhishek Agarwal, Akchansh Kishore, Advocates (In A.B.A.-3260/22) : M/s Indrajit Sinha, Amit Sinha, Advocates (In A.B.A.-3330/22) For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I. (In A.B.A.-3260/22) Mr. Prashant Pallav, D.S.G.I. Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to D.S.G.I. (In A.B.A.-3330/22) ----- 14/14.12.2022. A.B.A. No.3260 of 2022 and A.B.A. No.3330 of 2022 are arising out of RC AC1 2018 A 0006 and that is why both the applications have been heard together with consent of the parties. 2. In both the cases, the petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with RC AC1 2018 A 0006 [corresponding to R.C.06(A)/2018-D], registered under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in the court of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner- XVIII cum Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against Arvind Kumar Agarwal @ Arvind Agarwal (petitioner in A.B.A. No.3260 of 2022) is that while being the authorised representative 2 for all the companies, he has played the role of middleman between public servants and private persons. He further submits that it has also been alleged that his recorded conversation with the accused Bishwanath Agarwal in call no.20, 22, 30, 70 and 71 of the mobile no.9830041787 revealed that conspiracy is there. The petitioner sought unreasonably very high fee for being authorised representative of the companies, which was allegedly demanded for being further paid to public servants for passing favourable re-assessment works and other related works at Income Tax Department, Koderma. 4. He further submits that so far as Binod Kumar Agarwal (petitioner in A.B.A. No.3330 of 2022) is concerned, the allegation is made that he is a Tax Consultant and close associate of Bishwanath Agarwal and Santosh Shah and he has given idea for transfer of the companies from Kolkata to the jurisdiction of Tapas Dutta, the then Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi and Hazaribag so that the assessee companies may get reassessed by way of revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and finally may get a favourable order. He submits that Bishwanath Agarwal and Santosh Shah had been alleged to be close connections with Tapas Dutta, the then Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi and Hazaribagh, did rest of the setting with the public servant as it happened in other cases registered by the CBI in which investigation is going on. He further submits that so far as these two petitioners are concerned, apart from that there is nothing further alleged. He submits that in RC AC-1 2017 A0003 is the main case, in which, the petitioners are the accused and they have not been chargesheeted and in the present case, they have been chargesheeted. He further submits that the accused Tarun Roy, Income Tax Officer, Koderma 3 against whom there is also allegation and he has also not been chargesheeted, he has been provided the benefit of conditional bail. He also submits that the accused persons in RC 03(A)/2017-D have been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in A.B.A. No.45 of 2018 and other matters, vide order dated 08.05.2018. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioners may be provided the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI in A.B.A. No.3260 of 2022 submits that the petitioner worked as authorised representative of five assessee companies given by Bishwanath Agarwal. The petitioner conspired with other accused persons which subsequently resulted in huge relief in tax liability/penalties to the assessee companies. He further submits that in call no.70 of mobile no.9830041787, the conversation between Bishwanath Agarwal and the petitioner was there wherein the petitioner was saying that he had paid for order and the work done but he has not taken name of any person to whom he had given the money. He further submits that there are larger conspiracy and there are allegations of influencing the then Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi and in that view of the matter, the benefit of anticipatory bail may not be provided to the petitioner. 6. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned D.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI in A.B.A. No.3330 of 2022 submits that para 16.6 of the charge-sheet clearly stipulates conspiracy part of the petitioner. He further submits that a coordinate Bench of this Court has rejected the anticipatory bail applications filed by the accused person being A.B.A. No.3075 of 2022 in connection with R.C.05(A)/2018-D and A.B.A. No.2317 of 2022 in connection with R.C. 07(A)/2018-D and in that view of the matter, the benefit of anticipatory bail 4 may not be provided to the petitioner. 7. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and looking into the charge-sheet, it transpires that the petitioners' role has come in transferring a particular case from Kolkata jurisdiction to Ranchi, Hazaribag and Koderma jurisdiction and by way of playing conspiracy, they have succeeded in having a favourable order with regard to assessment arising out of Income Tax and it has been alleged that it has caused loss to the Government exchequer to the tune of Rs.46 Crores and odd. Although the petitioner in A.B.A. No.3260 of 2022 was the authorised representative of the assessee companies, but on going through the intercepted calls, his role as a middleman between the public servants and the other conspirators has come into light. As a part of conspiracy between Bishwanath Agarwal and the petitioner in A.B.A. No.3330 of 2022, the assessee companies mentioned in the case was transferred. The coordinate Bench of this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the accused by giving direction to deposit certain amount before the Jharkhand Juvenile Justice Fund, but it cannot be a criterion for granting anticipatory bail and if any particular is entitled for anticipatory bail, he/she can be provided the benefit of anticipatory bail in light of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Thus, that order is not helping the petitioners. 8. Regard being had to the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, these petitions stand dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/ "