CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus SANTOSH KARNANI & ANR

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 476 · Decided: 17-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 476
476
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
v.
SANTOSH KARNANI & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2023)
APRIL 17, 2023
[SURYA KANT AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 7, 13(1), 13(2) –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 41A, 438 – Constitution of
India – Art. 21 – Tax Department initiated search and seizure action
against the complainant’s company – Respondent- Additional
Commissioner of Income Tax was handling the case of the
complainant – Allegation against the respondent that he made a
demand of illegal gratification to help the complainant with his case
– The said conversation of demand between the complainant and
the respondent was recorded in a digital voice recorder – A trap
was then laid – Respondent had asked to deposit an amount in a
firm’s account – Complainant’s employee was sent to the firm with
the bribe amount along with personnel from the ACB trap team and
the bribe amount was deposited with the firm and it was
acknowledged by the respondent to the complainant over a call –
Thereafter, when an ACB team went to arrest the respondent, he
along with the staff members physically assaulted the ACB team
and escaped the office – FIR was registered u/ss. 7, 13(1) and 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Respondent preferred
an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Special
Judge, which was rejected – However, the same was allowed by the
High Court with a direction that despite anticipatory bail, the CBI
could apply for police remand of the respondent and that upon the
completion of the police remand, the respondent would be set free
immediately – On appeal, held: The purported recording of
conversation between the complainant and respondent wherein he
thanked the complainant, after the deposit of amount in the firm’s
account, is a reasonable link to connect respondent with the deposit
of illegal gratification in firm, thereby prima facie showing
acceptance thereof – The manner in which respondent forcefully
evaded his arrest with the help of his colleagues and got the evidence
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
477
destroyed, is a strong circumstance to indicate his complicity at this
stage – There appears to be a well-organised syndicate comprising
officers and officials of the Income Tax Department, businessmen
and Hawala traders, who are in tandem – Such a nexus needs to be
unearthed through investigation – Therefore, the impugned judgment
and order of the High Court set aside and the anticipatory bail
application of respondent dismissed.
Bail – Anticipatory bail – Relevant factors 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.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s. 17A – Prior Approval
of Investigation – Requirement of – The First Proviso to S. 17A
states that such approval is not necessary in cases involving arrest
of the person on the spot on the charges of accepting undue
advantage – Also, a prior approval or sanction to investigate such
an officer in a trap case is likely to defeat the very purpose of trap
and the investigation, which is not the underlying intention of the
legislature.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438 – Cancellation of
Bail – Cancellation of bail must be done only for cogent and
overwhelming reasons – All that to be ensured is that the High Court
exercises its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in
conformity with the basic principles laid down by the Supreme Court
from time to time in series of decisions.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The manner in which Respondent No. 1 forcefully
evaded his arrest with the help of his colleagues and got the
evidence destroyed, is a strong circumstance to indicate his
complicity at this stage though a clear picture would emerge only
on completion of investigation. [Para 30][494-H; 495-A]
2. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have
been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses a serious
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. SANTOSH
KARNANI & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
threat to ou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.