TARUN ROY V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CBI RANCHI

A.B.A./3609/2018

AI Insights

The case involves three petitioners, Tarun Roy, Sunil Kumar Gupta, and Ranjit Kumar Lal, who sought anticipatory bail in connection with corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and IPC. The allegations suggest that the petitioners, being Income Tax Officers, abused their positions by reducing tax liabilities in exchange for gratification, influenced by co-accused Tapas Kumar Dutta, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) did not object to the anticipatory bail provided the petitioners cooperated with the investigation. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence of recovery of valuables from the petitioners and their readiness to cooperate with the investigative process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 732344 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: B.A. No. 7390 of 2017, B.A. No. 8699 of 2017, B.A. No. 7287 of 2017
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Criminal Procedure Code, Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NITU SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR; RAHUL KUMAR; SUMEET GADODIA
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Corruption; Income Tax Officers; Quid Pro Quo; Official position; Gratification
• Section: 12; 13(2); 7; 13(1)(d); 161; 120B

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3609 of 2018 ------ Tarun Roy .... .... …. Petitioner Versus Union of India through C.B.I., Ranchi .... .... .... Opposite Party With A.B.A. No.3636 of 2018 ------ Sunil Kumar Gupta .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. .... .... .... Opposite Party With A.B.A. No.3800 of 2018 ------ Ranjit Kumar Lal .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Ranchi .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, J.C. to A.S.G.I. ------ Order No.08 Dated- 29.01.2019 Petitioner –Tarun Roy (A.B.A. No. 3609 of 2018) is apprehending his arrest in connection with RC-AC1, 2018 A 0006 corresponding to R.C. 06 (A)/2018-D for the offence under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 7, 12 & 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Petitioner –Sunil Kumar Gupta (A.B.A. No. 3636 of 2018) is apprehending his arrest in connection with RC No. 05(A)/2018-D for the offence under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 7, 12 & 13(2) read with section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Petitioner –Ranjit Kumar Lal (A.B.A. No. 3800 of 2018) is apprehending his arrest in connection with RC-AC-1-2018 A 0004 corresponding to R.C. 04(A)/2018-D for the offence under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 7, 12 & 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the C.B.I. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners of these three anticipatory bail applications that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the Income Tax Officers (I.T.O) consequent upon the earlier assessment order was set aside by the co-accused Tapas Kumar Dutta being the Principal Commissioner Income Tax (PCIT) have abused their official position by ignoring the huge tax liabilities and issues raised by the Income Tax Officers at Calcutta which were set aside by the PCIT and reduced the tax liability in lieu of gratification. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of the Court to the order dated 12.12.2017 passed by a coordinate Bench in B.A. No. 7390 of 2017 which case relates to similar allegation against the petitioner Tarun Roy, in B.A. No. 8699 of 2017 in respect of the petitioner Sunil Kumar Gupta and in B.A. No. 7287 of 2017 in respect of the petitioner Ranjit Kumar Lal relating to the account of M/s. Finlick Distributors Pvt. Ltd., that it was submitted by the C.B.I. in those bail applications that the C.B.I. cannot deny the fact that nothing like gold, cash and other valuables have been recovered from these petitioners to suggest quid pro quo as mentioned in paragraph no.7 of the said orders and the C.B.I. fairly submitted in those case that no such things or materials has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners. It is further submitted that in compliance of the order of the predecessor Judge, in these cases the statement of the petitioners have been recorded by the I.O. under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case and are ready and willing to abide any condition imposed for anticipatory bail to them. It is further submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar drawing attention of the Court to annexure-4 passed by the co-accused PCIT in exercise of the jurisdiction under section 264 of the I.T. Act 1961 that the co- accused has restricted the petitioner to that aspect of enquiry which was not carried out by the previous assessing officer and further directed that the reassessment proceeding be completed without waiting up to the statutory time barring date. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the C.B.I. submits that C.B.I. does not have any objection if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner provided they cooperate with the investigation of the case by remaining present before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him with an undertaking they will not change their cell number without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the C.B.I. as the C.B.I do not have any objection to the prayer for anticipatory bail subject to the petitioners cooperating with the investigation of the case and the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the petitioners have already been recorded and they are also ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case where the above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail on their being arrested or surrendering in the court of Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi within four weeks from the date of this order subject to the following conditions:- (i) Petitoner – Tarun Roy (A.B.A. No. 3609 of 2018) will be given the privilege of anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupeees Two Lakh) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi in connection with RC-AC1, 2018 A 0006 corresponding to R.C. 06 (A)/2018-D. (ii) Petitioner –Sunil Kumar Gupta (A.B.A. No. 3636 of 2018) will be given the privilege of anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupeees Two Lakh) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi in connection with RC No. 05(A)/2018-D. (iii) Petitioner –Ranjit Kumar Lal (A.B.A. No. 3800 of 2018) will be given the privilege of anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupeees Two Lakh) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi in connection with RC-AC-1-2018 A 0004 corresponding to R.C. 04(A)/2018-D. (iv) They shall remain present before the Trial Court on each and every date to which the case is posted. If they want to remain absent on a particular date for any unavoidable circumstance or reason, the reasons of their absence should be communicated to the Court concerned well in advance. (v) They will intimate the Court of their present residential address along with documents in proof of the same and they will give an undertaking that without taking permission of the Court, they will not change their place of residence. In case they are forced to change their residence, they will furnish sufficient proof of his new residence and obtain permission from the Trial Court. (vi) Petitioners will deposit their passport, if any, with the Court below. (vii) They will not dispute their identity as an accused in this case. (viii) If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated and instance of such violation is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court may take appropriate action including that of cancelling the bail bonds of the petitioners. (ix) Liberty is reserved with Central Bureau of Investigation to make a prayer for modification or recalling of the order if any of the aforesaid conditions is/are violated. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan- "