NARESH KUMAR CHHAPARIA V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH C B I

A.B.A./3075/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an anticipatory bail application by Naresh Kumar Chhaparia, Dipak Kumar Chhaparia, and Piyush Kumar Chhaparia, who were apprehending arrest in connection with a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code. The allegations centered around a conspiracy to transfer income tax assessment files from Kolkata to Ranchi/Hazaribagh to provide undue tax relief in exchange for illegal gratification. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had initially not named the petitioners in the FIR but later included them after further investigation, leading to a charge-sheet. The prosecution argued that the petitioners, as controllers of various companies, benefited from this conspiracy, causing substantial financial loss to the government. The defense argued that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation and cited a similar case where a co-accused was granted bail. However, the court, considering the seriousness of the charges and the potential for flight risk, denied the bail application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679958 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Bhadresh Bipinbhai Seth v. State of Gujarat and Anr., P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, IT Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRASHANT PALLAVA; BAJRANG KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PANDEY RAI; ROHIT SINHA; AKCHANSH KISHORE
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Criminal conspiracy; Custodial interrogation; Economic offences; Illegal gratification; Income tax assessment; Public exchequer
• Section: 12; 264; 13(2); 7; 13(1)(d); 120-B; 120-B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 3075 of 2022 ----- 1. Naresh Kumar Chhaparia 2. Dipak Kumar Chhaparia 3. Piyush Kumar Chhaparia …. …. Petitioners Versus Union of India through CBI … …. Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate; Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Prashant Pallava, ASGI Mr. Bajrang Kumar, AC to ASGI ----- Oral Order 06/ Dated : 29.06.2022 The anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioners, namely, Naresh Kumar Chhaparia, Dipak Kumar Chhaparia and Piyush Kumar Chhaparia, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with R.C. 05(A)/2018-D for the offence registered under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with 13/(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi is pressed into motion. 2. Heard the parties. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the First Information Report being R.C.A.C. 2017-A 0003 was registered by the CBI against Tapas Kumar Dutta, Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Ranchi for the year 2016-17 on the allegation that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with his colleagues and Bishwanath Agarwal and Santosh Chowdhary @ Santosh Shah both Kolkata based businessmen and Entry Operators to get the income tax assessment file of different assessee companies transferred from Kolkata to Hazaribagh/Ranchi for providing undue relief to them in lieu of illegal gratification. Towards that conspiracy PAN was migrated of the assessee from Kolkatta to Ranchi on payment of huge bribe to the public servant. The petitioners are one of the group of such beneficiary assessee who by entering into conspiracy with the main accused got their income tax account transferred to Ranchi and obtained assessment causing huge loss to the public exchequer regarding which R.C. 05(A)-2018-D was registered on 26.04.2018 in which these petitioners were not initially named in the FIR, but after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against them by the CBI. It is also submitted that the salient features 2 ABA No. 3075 of 2022 of the findings of the investigation is that the petitioners are the controllers of private companies in pursuance to the conspiracy caught their companies transferred from Kolkata to Ranchi/Hazaribagh with anticipation of favourable orders under Section 264 of the IT Act and for reassessment favoring the assessee companies. These petitioners who are the controllers of M/s DKC Projects Private Limited, M/s Sidhi Dealmark Private Limited and M/s Sukun Vincom Private Limited took assistance of their tax consultant co-accused Binod Kumar Agarwal in the aforesaid act. All these petitioners are brothers and were controllers of the different companies. The companies that had been transferred to Ranchi had neither functioned nor carried out any business activity at Ranchi. The transcription of the conversation of 268 calls disclosed that a flat was purchased by a co-accused Bishwanath Agarwal for the co-accused Tapas Kumar Dutta from the funds received from the owners of the different assessee of the companies. The conspiracy resulted in huge financial loss to the State exchequer. 4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that during the investigation the petitioners had never been arrested and they cooperated in the investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer. After the submission of charge-sheet and cognizance, there is absolutely no requirement for custodial interrogation. In such circumstance, it is submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bhadresh Bipinbhai Seth v. State of Gujarat and Anr.” (2016) 1 SCC 152, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is lastly submitted that one of the co-accused, namely, Sunil Kumar Gupta, an Income Tax Officer has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ABA No. 3636 of 2018 vide order dated 29.01.2021. 5. Mr. Prashant Pallava, the learned ASGI appearing on behalf of CBI opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and by referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the CBI submitted that under a criminal conspiracy involving the Income Tax Officers, Tax Consultant and Assessee companies were shifted for getting tax reliefs causing huge loss to the government exchequer to the tune of Rs.1,83,79,140/- and Rs.66,34,740/-. Reliance has been placed on “P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement” (2019) 9 SCC 24. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. “Grant of anticipatory bail in exceptional cases 69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other 3 ABA No. 3075 of 2022 purposes. Power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.” 6. Further reliance has been placed in “Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.” in Special Leave to (Crl) No(s). 5191 of 2021 wherein certain guidelines have been laid down for grant of bail in cases of economic offences not recovered by the special acts. Considering such bail application both aspects have to be taken into account (a) seriousness of the charges and (b) severity of punishment. 7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels and the facts as discussed above, the anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected. 8. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within a period of two weeks. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Madhav/- "