Arvind Kumar Pandey V. The Union of India through CBI, Dhanbad

A.B.A./6966/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Arvind Kumar Pandey, a Gramin Dak Sewak, who faced charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for his alleged involvement in a fraudulent scheme that resulted in the illegal withdrawal of government money from fake savings accounts. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) accused him of being part of a criminal conspiracy that manipulated the financial system at the Giridih Head Post Office. The applicant sought anticipatory bail, claiming he was falsely implicated and had no direct involvement in the alleged crimes. However, the court found substantial evidence against him, including the return of defalcated money and the acquisition of disproportionate assets.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 696313 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., Siddharam Satlinappa Mhetre vs. state of Maharashtra & Ors., Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another, Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh, State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Prabhakar Rao & Anr., Manish Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan
• Laws Referred To: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: CHANDANA KUMARI
• Assessee Lawyers: INDRAJIT SINHA
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Criminal conspiracy; Disproportionate assets; Fake SB accounts; Fraudulent withdrawals; Public servant
• Section: 13(2); 13(1)(d); 438; 468; 120-B; 120-B; 420; 471; 467; 477A; 13(1)(e)

Judgement Text

"A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 ----- Arvind Kumar Pandey, aged about 43 years, son of Sudhir Kumar Pandey, Gramin Dak Sewak, Head Office, Giridih Division, Department of Post, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih, District Giridih 815 301 (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI, Dhanbad … … Opp. Party With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 ----- Arvind Kumar Pandey, aged about 43 years, son of Sudhir Kumar Pandey, Gramin Dak Sewak, Head Office, Giridih Division, Department of Post, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih, District Giridih 815 301 (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI … … Opp. Party ------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate ------ Order No. 07/Dated 12th January, 2024 1. Since these two applications are interlinked with each other, as such they are being analogously dealt with by this common order. 2. Apprehending arrest, the applicant herein seeks anticipatory bail in both these applications filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with R.C. case no.10(A)/2019(D) registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (In short Act, 1988) as also in R.C. case no.01(A)/22(D) registered under sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 2 Facts A.B.A 6126 of 2023 3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of present application is that the applicant being Gram Dak Sewak (GDS), has been charged for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. The case of prosecution in short is that a written complaint dated 16.12.2019 has been received from Shri R.P. Singh, Superintendent of Post Offices, Giridih Division, Giridih regarding fraudulent withdrawals from 24 fake SB accounts at Giridih Town (Sub-Post Office). 5. It is alleged in the complaint that during the period 2014-2018 accused persons namely, Md. Altaf, the then Asst. Post Master (Counter SB), Giridih HO, Shri Shashi Bhushan Kumar, the then Asst. Post Master (Counter SB), Giridih HO, Shri Basudeo Das, the then Sub Post Master, Giridih Town SO, Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, the then Sub Post Master, Giridih Town SO and others unknown entered into criminal conspiracy amongst themselves and in pursuance thereof made fraudulent deposits in 24 fake Saving Bank Accounts opened at Giridih Town Sub Office without any corresponding credit entries in the A/c of Giridih HO. A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 3 6. Subsequently, fraudulent withdrawals to the tune of Rs.9,30,24,696.65 made from the said fake 24 SB accounts on different dates. 7. Accordingly, a case was registered against the aforesaid accused persons and others unknown under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 8. The name of present applicant has surfaced during the investigation and after investigation, the CBI submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 06 of 2021 dated 28.10.2021 under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 465, 471, 477A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) and section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. 9. Apprehending his arrest, the applicant had moved for grant of anticipatory bail in Misc. Criminal Application No. 538 of 2023, however the same was rejected vide order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad against which the present anticipatory bail application has been filed. A.B.A 6996 of 2023 10. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of present application is that, the applicant being Gram Dak A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 4 Sewak (GDS), has been charged with the offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 11. The case of the prosecution in short is that information was received and collected during investigation of R.C. Case No. 10(A)/2019-D, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad dated 17.12.2019 and R.C. Case No. 02(A)/2021-D, CBI, ACB, dated 10.08.2021, both registered against Md. Altaf, the then Assistant Post Master, Giridih, Head Office and others and the subsequent verification of the same revealed that Arvind Kumar Pandey (the present applicant) while posted and functioning as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) at Giridih Head Post Office and Branch Office of Giridih, Division, Giridih during the period i.e. from 10.12.2010 to 24.08.2021 intentionally enriched himself illicitly and amassed huge assets (both movable & immovable) in his name and in the name of his family members which are disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs.6,81,85,873/- (Rupees Six Crore Eighty One Lakh, Eighty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Three) and acquisition of the same cannot be satisfactorily accounted for. 12. Accordingly, a case being R.C. case no.01(A)/22(D) was registered against the present applicant under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 13. After investigation the CBI submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 06 of 2022 dated 28.12.2022 under A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 5 Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act corresponding to section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (b) of Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended by the Prevention of corruption amendment Act 2018) against the applicant. 14. Apprehending his arrest, the applicant had moved for grant of anticipatory bail in Misc. Criminal Application No. 537 of 2023, however the same was rejected vide order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad, against which the present anticipatory bail application has been filed. Submissions 15. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. In this context, he submitted that the petitioner working as GDS in Clearing House of the Head Office during the period 2016-2018 where his work was of messenger and he was only supposed to collect the cheques from the bank and give to the competent officer at the Head Post Office and he has got nothing to do as GDS in this episode. 16. It is submitted that the cheque clearing work is a part of treasury and the postal assistant / treasurer (regular clerk) is only responsible for such act and the petitioner being a messenger, was nowhere involved in the work of clearing of cheque. A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 6 17. The learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the entire prosecution case is based on assumption that the petitioner has facilitated for clearing of cheques but it is not the case because the co-accused Shashi Bhushan Kumar was posted as Treasurer at Giridih H.O. at the relevant time and he was solely in-charge and authorized to clear the cheques. 18. Further, the petitioner has never applied and allotted such ID and password as the departmental rules of GDS does not authorize for GDS work in CDS FINNACLE system at Giridih H.O. 19. It is further contended that the applicant was the then GDS and was engaged on a part time basis for a maximum 03 to 05 hours a day, as such, he never came under the ambit of public servant as defined in the statute and, as such, the implication of the applicant under prevention of corruption Act is totally misplaced and the entire prosecution case so far applicant is concerned is based upon false and frivolous grounds. 20. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that so far as allegation of disproportionate assets during relevant check period against the applicant is totally misconceived because the petitioner has/had agricultural income from several acres of land which he has inherited from his joint family through inheritance or through will. A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 7 21. It is further submitted that the petitioner had several ancestral and gold jewelleries which were sold on record and the sale proceeds in crores have come to the account of the applicant. The ancestors of the applicant got the land and the rights to do various poojas and the applicant’s and his family has more than thousands jajmans who have traditionally been gifting cash and other valuables items etc. to the applicant’s family for more than 100 years and the traditional gifts given by villagers of several villages has also added sufficient income to the petitioner. Further the applicant has also acquired huge income by renting out his acres of land to some known persons and entering into agreement. But, the aforesaid income of the petitioner has been ignored by CBI. 22. Further, learned counsel for the applicant, to buttress his argument, has relied upon the judgment as rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the question of personal liberty is the paramount consideration being the fundamental right and even in a case of criminal nature, consideration is to be given before snatching the personal liberty of the person concerned as granted under Article 21 of the constitution of India. 23. In view of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the case is made out for exercising the powers vested with the Court for granting pre- A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 8 arrest bail and accordingly, the instant applications may be allowed. 24. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail contending that the involvement of the applicant in the instant case is established and considering the seriousness of the offence and in the interest of the society at large, these applications may not be allowed. 25. It is further submitted that the instant case is about dishonest and illegal withdrawal of Government money from alleged 24 fake saving accounts of Giridih Town SO by using the details of already used demand drafts/cheques and the present applicant while working in clearing house made dishonest and fraudulent entries of details of already used demand drafts at Giridih Head Post Office by using his User ID in FINACLE as the role of maker/operator. 26. Further, it has been submitted that so far as the allegation of disproportionate assets is concerned, it is revealed during investigation that assets of the applicant at the beginning of check period i.e. as on 10.12.2010 was Rs.12,400.00 and the assets at the end of the check period i.e. on 24.08.2021 was Rs.5,35,25,340.54 and, as such, assets worth Rs.5,35,12,940.54 was acquired during the check period i.e. on 10.12.2010 to 24.08.2021. 27. The aforesaid facts prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences by the applicant which is punishable A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 9 u/s 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 corresponding Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (as amended in 2018). 28. In the aforesaid premises, he submitted that the applications having no any merits, deserves to be dismissed. Analysis 29. This Court has carefully analysed the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire record. 30. Before adverting to the issue raised by the respective parties, let us consider the settled law with respect to granting and/or refusing the anticipatory bail. 31. It has been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court time and again in its various pronouncements that the powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is in extra-ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only and therefore, the anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime, as grant of anticipatory bail to some extent, is interference in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be cautious while exercising such powers. 32. It is also settled connotation of law that the grant or refusal of the application should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstance of each case and there is no hard and A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 10 fast rule and no inflexible principles governing such exercise by the Court. 33. It is pertinent to mention here that the law on grant of anticipatory bail has been summed up by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlinappa Mhetre vs. state of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694 after due deliberation on the parameters as evolved by the Constitution Bench in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment as rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court is being quoted hereunder:- “111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia case [(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] that the High Court or the Court of Session has to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour. 112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 11 (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; (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 A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 12 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. 114. These are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration while deciding the anticipatory bail applications. These factors are by no means exhaustive but they are only illustrative in nature because it is difficult to clearly visualise all situations and circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise discretion is exercised by the Judge concerned, after consideration of the entire material on record then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this jurisdiction only to the Judges of the superior courts. In consonance with the legislative intention we should accept the fact that the discretion would be properly exercised. In any event, the option of approaching the superior court against the Court of Session or the High Court is always available.” 34. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that while deciding applications for anticipatory bail, Courts should be guided by factors like the nature and gravity of the offences and the role attributed to the applicant and the facts of the case. 35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in catena of decisions, has categorically held that the judicial discretion of the Court while considering the anticipatory bail shall be guided by various relevant factors and largely it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Reference in this A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 13 regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted herein under: “24. The time-tested 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.” 36. It is evident from the record that the allegation against the petitioner is also levelled under various provisions of the Act 1988, as such, at this juncture this Court thinks it fir and proper to discuss the object and purpose of the Act 1988. A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 14 37. Objects of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is to make effective provisions for the prevention of bribery and corruption rampant among the public servants. It is a social legislation intended to curb illegal activities of public servants and is designed to be liberally construed so as to address its object. 38. In State of M.P. v. Ram Singh, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 88, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was to make effective provisions for prevention of bribe and corruption amongst public servants. It has been further held that it is a social legislation to curb illegal activities of public servants and should be liberally construed so as to advance its object and not liberally in favour of the accused. 39. In the light of aforesaid principles and as per the object of the Act 1988, it may be inferred that it is the duty of the Court that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say, in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64. A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 15 40. In light of the aforesaid legal proposition and taking in to consideration the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this court is now adverting to the facts of the present case to reach out the conclusion that the case of pre- arrest bail for the applicant is made out or not. 41. From the material produced on record, this Court found that the instant case is about dishonest and illegal withdrawal of Government money from alleged 24 fake saving accounts of Giridih Town SO by using the details of already used demand drafts/cheques of Sub-Post Offices under Giridih Head Post Office amounting to Rs.2,62,26,389/- made at Giridih Town Sub-Post Office during the period 2016-2018 under connivance by accused public servants comprising of Post Master, Assistant Sub-Post Masters, Sub-Postmaster, Gramin Dak Sewaks(GDS) of Head Post Office/Sub-Post Office, Giridih in contravention of laid down norms and procedures of Department of Post for deriving undue pecuniary advantage and for causing wrongful loss to the Department of Post. 42. From perusal of the charge-sheet, which is appended with the present application, it appears that the applicant while working in Clearing House, made dishonest and fraudulent entries of already used demand drafts at Giridih Head Post Office by using his User ID-ARVINDPANDEY in FINACLE as the role of maker/operator. Upon entries of details of double charged demand drafts, accused Md. Altaf, A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 16 in the role of Supervisor, dishonestly verified those entries in FINACLE system with his FINACLE ID MDALTAF-1982 while working as APM SB counter at Giridih Head Post Office (HO) in connivance with accused persons. 43. Investigation has further revealed that accused persons namely Basudeo Das and Krishna Das has illegally processed details of all 115 demand drafts of Rs.2,62,26,389/- at Giridih Town SD and Arvind Kr Pandey (the applicant) and Md Altaf has made fraudulent entries and illegally processed details of 72 already used demand drafts amounting to Rs. 1,68,71.360/- at Giridih HO. 44. Further the applicant has surrendered/returned defalcated money amounting to Rs 61,77,050/- in cash through his uncle Vasudeo Pandey into treasury on different dates and the return of said defalcated money into Government account at the time when the fraud was exposed/detected is also very much relevant to the case and the said instance of return of money by Arvind Kr Pandey (applicant), and other accused persons, recovery of cash, huge investment in fixed deposits etc. has shown the illegal withdrawal of money. 45. It has come in the charge-sheet that the present applicant has amassed huge investment in fixed deposits in the nationalized banks and in life insurance policies in his name and in the name of his family members during the relevant period and said properties are put under freeze. A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 17 46. It is further evident from the charge sheet that the applicant received total income of Rs.70,50,808/- (approx.) from his known sources of income, viz. salary income of wife, other income as mentioned in ITR, etc. during the Check Period of 10.12.2010 to 24.08.2021 and his total expenditure during the check period was Rs 2,17,23,741.00 (approx) in the form of household kitchen expenses and towards LIC policies in his name and the name of the family members. Thus, Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey is found to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.6,81,85,873 approximately to his known sources of income during the check period i.e 10.12.2010 to 24.08.2021. 47. Further during investigation, it has revealed that the applicant and his wife Anjal Devi have filed Income Tax returns during the assessment year 2013-2014 to 2021- 2022 (except 2018-2019 for Anjali Devi) whereas his son Brajesh Kumar Pandey has filed income tax return for the assessment year 2016-2020 & 2020-2021. The income declared by them in their returns have been considered for assessing the income of applicant. Although applicant’s wife is house wife and his son Brajesh Kumar Pandey is a student, IT returns have been filed in their name to accommodate illegal money of the applicant. 48. The foremost argument as emphasised by the learned counsel for applicant that the post of the applicant doesn’t A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 18 come under the purview of public servant, hence the charges under the Act 1988 cannot be imposed upon the applicant. 49. In the aforesaid context it appears from the record that the job profile of Gramin Dak Sevak(GDS) includes overall management of postal facilities, maintenance of records and payment bank services in branch post offices. It includes all functions of Mail Carriers and Mat Deliverers, door-step delivery/payments under IPPB in Branch Post Office/SO/HO. His duty and responsibility involves managing affairs of GDS Post Offices and, as such, GDS in his capacity perform the public work. 50. Further the public duty as stipulated under section 2(b) of the Act 1988 means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest. 51. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, reported in 2020 (2) RCR (Criminal) 544, has observed that evidently, the language of Section 2(b) of the Act 1988, indicates that any duty discharged wherein State, the public or community at large has any interest is called a public duty. 52. Further as per the definition of Public Servant as stipulated in section 2(c) sub-clause (viii) of Act 1988, it appears that any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty, will come under the ambit of public servant. A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 19 53. In State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Prabhakar Rao & Anr., reported in (2002) 7 SCC 636, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the definition of ‘Public Servant’ U/s 21 of IPC is of no relevance under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 54. In Manish Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 420, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a member of the Municipal Board or a Municipal Councilor per se may not come within the definition of public servant as defined U/s 21 of IPC but this does not mean that they cannot be brought in the category of public servant by any other enactment. 55. In the aforesaid circumstances, the nature of work as performed by the applicant, the present applicant comes under the purview of the Act 1988, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant in this context does not appear to be correct. 56. Further the learned counsel has put reliance upon the judgment as rendered by the hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (Supra) and raised the question of snatching away the personal liberty of the accused person but it is the considered view of this Court that grant or refusal of the application should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstance of each case and there is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principles governing such exercise by the Court. Reference in A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 20 this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another (Supra). 57. Thus, this Court by referring to the materials placed on record by the CBI is of the considered view that prima facie, the allegations against the present applicant cannot be brushed aside lightly and also there appears to be a well- organised syndicate comprising various officials of the postal Department who are in tandem and, as such, this type of nexus needs to be unearthed. 58. In the facts of present case, it is useful to refer to and rely on the case of Niranjan Hem Chandra Sashittal Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 wherein the hon’ble Supreme Court observed that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. The Apex Court further observed that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty and history records with agony how they have suffered; and the only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with constitutional morality. The emphasis was on intolerance to any kind of corruption bereft of its degree. A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 21 59. Further in Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.B.I reported in (2014) 8 SCC 682, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court observed that corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the 1988 Act. 60. The hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another (Supra) has observed that corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted herein under:- “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.” Conclusion 61. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and circumstances, as have been analysed hereinabove, the applicant failed to make out a special case for exercise of power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters, A.B.A. No.6126 of 2023 With A.B.A. No.6966 of 2023 22 necessary to be considered for adjudication of anticipatory bail, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the anticipatory bail applications are liable to be rejected. 62. It is made clear that this court has not delved into the merits of the matter and views expressed in this order are prima-facie only. 63. In the result, both these applications are hereby rejected. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Birendra/N.A.F.R. "