SUBIR KUMAR GANGULI V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CBI

A.B.A./7207/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Subir Kumar Ganguli, an I.T.O. (Tech) in the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, who sought anticipatory bail in connection with allegations of corruption and criminal conspiracy. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case against him and co-accused based on information that they conspired with entry operators and a Chartered Accountant to manipulate Income Tax assessments for bribes. The petitioner was accused of transferring Income Tax files and facilitating favorable assessments in exchange for bribes. The CBI opposed the bail, citing the need for custodial interrogation to further investigate the allegations. The court's decision was influenced by the seriousness of the charges and the potential for the petitioner to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if granted anticipatory bail.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724597 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Indian Penal Code, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NEETU SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD GUPTA
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Criminal conspiracy; Custodial interrogation; Illegal gratification; Public servant
• Section: 12; 15; 264; 13(2); 7; 13(1)(d); 511

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B. A. No. 7207 of 2020 Subir Kumar Ganguli @ Subir Kumar Ganguly … Petitioner Versus Union of India through CBI … Opposite Party Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Pd. Gupta Adv. For the CBI : Mrs. Neetu Sinha, Adv. 02 / 05.02.2021 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over. In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with RC/AC/1 2017 A 0003 No. 2017 dated 10.07.2017 registered under Sections 15 P.C. Act, Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 12, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the this case was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on receipt of source information against the petitioner who is an I.T.O. (Tech) in the office of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi and other co-accused persons, alleging that during the year 2016-17, the petitioner who is a public servant entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons, as well as some Kolkata based businessman who are infamous entry operators and one Chartered Accountant for getting Income Tax assessment files of different assessee companies transferred from Kolkata / Hazaribag to Ranchi for providing undue favour to those assessee, who have been charged with heavy tax liability in lieu of bribe for huge amount and it is specifically alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner in capacity of I.T.O. (Tech) in the office of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi assisted the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in holding proceedings under Section 264 of Income Tax Act. It is also alleged that petitions filed under Section 264 of Income Tax Act by various assessee challenging the additions made by respective assessing officers were entrusted to the petitioner by the co-accused Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi and he put up the files to the co-accused, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi and issued notices to the assesses for attending the hearings before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi and after getting the order under Section 264 of Income Tax Act by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi, the petitioner dispatched the orders to all concerned and during scrutiny of the income tax returns of the said firms, it was found that huge undeclared income were there and accordingly, additional income tax was added resulting in high demand and the petitioner in furtherance of criminal conspiracy in order to save the co-accused companies from paying additional tax, got the Permanent Account Numbers transferred to Ranchi though the assesses companies never actually shifted to Ranchi and thereafter filed petition, under Section 264 of Income Tax Act for obtaining favorable orders from the co-accused Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi with the aid of the petitioner and the petitioner obtained illegal gratification of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the accused Biswanath Agrawal. It is then submitted that the allegations of criminal conspiracy and taking illegal gratification and criminal misconduct against the petitioner are all false, malafide and vague. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused have been given conditional bail by this court or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the CBI vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of having taken illegal gratification of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case, hence the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner of being a public servant having receiving illegal gratification several lakhs of rupees and doing favour to the co-accused firms, in avoiding payment of the income tax to the government as well as requirement of his custodial interrogation during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/- "