BA No.386/2024
..1..

Order
MHCC020073852024
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR CBI AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.386 OF 2024
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.581 OF 2024
Vijay Kumar
Age : 44 years, Occ : Service
Residing at : Tower B-1, Flat No.102,
Gardenia Glory, Sector 46, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh 201301
.. Applicant/accused
Versus
CBI, ACB, Mumbai
.. Respondent/prosecution
Shri. V. N. Shingnapurkar, Advocate for applicant
Shri. Mayank Singh, SPP for respondent
CORAM :
S. H. GWALANI, SPECIAL JUDGE
COURT ROOM NO.48
DATED :
09th MAY, 2024
ORAL ORDER
Applicant/accused Vijay Kumar, has filed present application for
bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Remand
Application No.581 of 2024 in RC 0262014A0013, registered for the
offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case of the prosecution in brief as under :
2.

On the basis of the complaint dated 01.05.2024 filed by
complainant Rupesh Patil, FIR No. RC0262024A0013 for offence
BA No.386/2024
..2..

Order
punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(As amended in 2018) has been registered against applicant/accused
Vijay Kumar, Senior Manager, Corporate Communications, NTPC.
3.

It is alleged in the complaint that applicant/accused Vijay Kumar
has demanded bribe of Rs.6 lakhs from complainant to manage and get
the bill passed of M/s. Ventures Advertising Pvt. Ltd. relating to
installation of selfie booth at Andaman Nicobar and Pondicherry.
However, as the complainant did not want to pay the bribe, he made the
complaint with CBI. Thereafter, allegations mentioned in the complaint
has been discretely verified in presence of panch witnesses on
01.05.2024 and 02.05.2024 which indicates that accused enhanced his
demand of bribe to Rs.9.25 lakhs and after negotiation, he has agreed
to accept bribe of Rs.8 lakhs from the complainant. It is further alleged
that on 02.05.2024, a successful trap was laid in which accused Vijay
Kumar was caught while demanding and accepting bribe money from
the complainant.
4.

Applicant/accused has filed this bail application on the grounds
that he is in police custody from 02.05.2024 and has associated with
investigation and cooperated with CBI officers. CBI officers have already
seized the required documents, articles and also conducted searches of
his residential premises. Now, nothing is to be recovered from the
applicant. CBI has already completed trap proceeding and therefore,
further custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. He will
abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this
Court. Accordingly, applicant prayed in above terms.

BA No.386/2024
5.

..3..

Order
CBI strongly opposed the application by filing their reply vide
Exh.02, denied the contents of application and reiterated the case of the
prosecution. It is contended that applicant/accused has been caught
while demanding and accepting bribe money from the complainant.
Bribe money was recovered from the possession of accused in presence
of independent witnesses. Accused is Public Servant, Senior Manger and
has capability to influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence
which would adversely hamper the investigation. Investigation is in
progress and is at crucial stage. Some incriminating documents are yet
to be recovered. Statement of the relevant witnesses are yet to be
recorded. This is a case of serious offence of a public servant obtaining
undue advantage by abusing his official position which affects economic
fabric of the country. Accordingly, prosecution prayed for rejection of
the application.
6.

Heard Shri. V. N. Shingnapurkar, learned advocate for applicant/
accused and Shri. Mayank Singh, learned PP for CBI at length. They
advance their argument as per their respective contention.
7.

At this stage, the Court has to consider nature and seriousness of
accusation, severity of offences, nature of evidence collected, character
and behaviour of the accused, possibility of tampering of evidence and
accused absconding. The existence of a prima facie case is only to be
examined. Detail discussion of evidence and elaborate documentation
of merits is to be avoided. In view of the guidelines of the HonТble Apex
Court, it is clear that Уmere that any economic offence has been
registered cannot be a sole ground to refuse anticipatory bail or regular
bail.Ф
BA No.386/2024
8.

..4..

Order
In view of the above legal position, present bail application is to
be considered on its own merits. In present case, offence under section
7 of the P. C. Act has been invoked in this crime. Punishment provided
for this offence is up to Seven Years. Role attributed to applicant is that,
he made demand of bribe of Rs.6 lakhs from complainant. Thereafter,
he enhanced his demand of bribe to Rs.9.25 lakhs and after negotiation,
he agreed to accept bribe of Rs.8 lakhs from the complainant in order to
manage and get the bill passed of M/s. Ventures Advertising Pvt. Ltd.
relating to installation of selfie booth at Andaman Nicobar and
Pondicherry. And, on 02.05.2024, a successful trap was laid in which
applicant/accused was caught while demanding and accepting bribe
money from the complainant. Said amount was recovered from the
possession of accused.
9.

It further appears that during investigation house search of the
accused was conducted at New Delhi and some incriminating articles
have been recovered from the house of accused. Recovery of certain
papers have also been made. Pre-trap and post trap panchanamas have
been drawn.
10.

Initially, accused was remanded to police custody on 03.05.2024
and thereafter, on 06.05.2024, he has been remanded to judicial
custody as per request made by the prosecution/investigating agency.
This itself shows his custodial interrogation with police/CBI is not
required. Applicant is behind bars since 02.05.2024. Investigating
officer has collected the incriminating material, seized the mobile phone
of accused and also taken his voice specimen sample.

BA No.386/2024
11.

..5..

Order
In above background and in view of the facts mentioned in the
preceding paras, there is no need to have custodial interrogation of
applicant/accused. Learned advocate for applicant/accused submitted
that applicant is already suspended. CBI has also not disputed the said
fact. That being so, possibility of his getting access to the documents in
office is remote. In relation to trap matter which has been arose,
custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is now not necessary.
Admittedly, applicant is public servant and has permanent residence at
Lucknow and at relevant time, he was posted at New Delhi and came to
be arrested from Mumbai. Therefore, in the facts of matter, submission
of learned PP that there is possibility of accused absconding does not
appear to be well founded.
12.

So far as apprehension of investigating agency in relation to
influencing witnesses and tampering with prosecution evidence is
concerned; allegations in that regard are vague and of general nature.
For that purpose, further incarceration of applicant/accused is not
required. Even otherwise same can be addressed by imposing certain
conditions. In the light of discussion made above and in the facts of
matter, I am inclined to exercise discretion of granting bail to applicant/
accused. Hence, I pass following order.
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.386 of 2024 is allowed.

2.

Applicant/accused Vijay Kumar be released on bail on his
executing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with
one or more solvent sureties in like amount.

BA No.386/2024
3.

..6..

Order
Applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or tamper with evidence.
4.

He shall furnish his detailed permanent residential address i.e.

Lucknow as well as Mumbai, New Delhi, and native residence along
with mobile number to the Court and Investigating officer. In case of
change of address and mobile number he shall intimate the same in
advance to the Court and Investigating officer.
5.

He shall not abscond and make himself available for investigation
purpose and co-operate Investigating Officer in investigation and attend
the CBI Office, Mumbai as and when required by the Investigating
Officer until further order.
6.

He shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

7.

Accordingly, bail application stands disposed of.
SHYAM
HARIRAM
GWALANI
Date : 09.05.2024
Digitally
signed by
SHYAM
HARIRAM
GWALANI
Date:
2024.05.09
17:36:14
+0530
(S. H. Gwalani)
Special Judge, CBI
Gr. Bombay
BA No.386/2024
..7..

Order
УCERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.Ф
09.05.2024, 5.35 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mrs. S. P. Pawar
Stenographer (Grade – I)
Name of the Judge (With Court H.H.J. Shri. S. H. Gwalani
Room No.)
C.R.No.48
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
09.05.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. 09.05.2024
on
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
09.05.2024