SANTOSH KUMAR SHAH V. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CBI

A.B.A./4523/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Santosh Kumar Shah, who sought anticipatory bail in connection with a conspiracy to acquire disproportionate assets with Tapas Kumar Dutta, a former Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata. The allegations include that Shah received Rs. 2.5 Crore as a loan from Dutta at an interest rate of 6% per month, which was part of a larger scheme of income tax evasion and asset accumulation disproportionate to known sources of income. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and the evidence, including voice recordings and financial transactions. The court, considering the severity of the accusations and the evidence presented, denied the bail application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 721769 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: P. Chidambaram v. CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 337
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BAJRANG KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NIRANJAN KUMAR
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Black money; Criminal conspiracy; Disproportionate assets; Income tax evasion
• Section: 13(2); 13(1)(c); 120B

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 4523 of 2022 ----- Santosh Kumar Shah … …. Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI … …. Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Bajrang Kumar, A.C. to A.S.G.I. ----- Oral Order 07 / Dated : 25.08.2022 Apprehending his arrest, petitioner- Santosh Kumar Shah has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.C. 3(A)/2018-D registered under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act). Heard the parties. As per the prosecution case, the CBI searched the office and residence of one Tapas Kumar Dutta on 12.7.2017 and during course of search, cash, jewelleries and document pertaining to income, assets and expenditure in his name and his family member were recovered and seized. The petitioner is named in the FIR and the main allegation against the petitioner is that he entered into conspiracy with Tapas Kumar Dutta, who was posted as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata who had acquired the disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.9,78,61,971.27/-. The modes operandi of the conspiracy was that Tapas Kumar Dutta had given Rs.2.5 Crore to the petitioner through Bishwanath Agarwal at the rate of 6% per month. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence under Section 13(1)(c) of the P.C. Act will not be made out in this case as he was not the public servant though there is no material to disclose the criminal conspiracy as alleged to show that the petitioner had received Rs.2.5 Crore from Tapas Kumar Dutta at the said rate of interest. The check period was from 01.04.2012 to 12.07.2017 and there is a sample of voice recording memo dated 14.07.2017 by the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is voice recording to the effect as set out in the charge sheet at paragraph 16.11 which show that he was taken loan and was paying interest. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted and the petitioner has not been arrested during investigation and, therefore, in view of the ratio as decided in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 there was no urgency of the arrest. The counsel appearing for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the matter involves large scale evasion of income tax under a criminal conspiracy in which Tapas Kumar Dutta the Principal Chief Commissioner of the Income Tax who amassed huge wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. There are recorded voice sample to show that this petitioner had received Rs 2.5 crore black money from Tapas Kumar Dutta on interest @ of 6%. Learned Counsel has relied on P. Chidambaram v. CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 337 to submit that the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution are important factors to be taken into account while considering bail application. Considering the gravity and nature of offence, the materials available against this petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below within two weeks. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT "