Mumbai, India – February 13, 2018 – In a significant development, the Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay today granted bail to Kalicharan Lambodar Panda, an Assistant Commissioner of Customs, who was arrested in connection with a bribery case. His Honour Judge Shri S.R. Tamboli, presiding over the case, allowed the bail application (BA 105/2018) on several conditions, citing the lack of direct evidence of demand for illegal gratification and the completion of initial investigation.
Panda, who has served as Assistant Commissioner of Customs in Mumbai since 2014, was accused in RC 05(A)/2018-CBI, ACB, Mumbai, of demanding illegal gratification for issuing favorable orders regarding the acceptance of declared value of imported goods.
Prosecution’s Allegations
Special Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K. Sharma, representing the CBI, EOW, Mumbai, argued that Panda demanded ₹2 lakh as illegal gratification from co-accused Talashi Kuroda, director of M/s Hope (India) Polishing Works Private Limited and M/s Hope India Diamond Trading Company Private Limited. The alleged demand was made through co-accused Sanjeev Malhotra, a chartered accountant.
The CBI claimed that a trap was laid on February 1, 2018, and ₹2 lakh was recovered from a bag in Panda’s office cabin. The prosecution further alleged that ₹3 lakh was recovered from Panda’s residence. They contended that recorded conversations between Panda and the co-accused showed the demand for illegal gratification, and that the investigation was still ongoing, with a possibility of witness tampering.
The CBI outlined the alleged “modus operandi”: co-accused Sanjeev Malhotra would raise a bill in the name of Talashi Kuroda, encash the cheque, and then hand over the cash to Kuroda for payment to Panda.
Defense’s Counter-Arguments
Advocate Mr. Ashish S. Chavan, appearing for the applicant, vigorously countered the prosecution’s claims. He argued that the prosecution’s story lacked credibility as no direct complaint about the demand was made by anyone. He questioned the non-disclosure of the “source information” that led to the FIR, suggesting it wasn’t verified as per CBI manual rules.
Mr. Chavan emphasized that mere seizure of money from the accused’s cabin does not automatically prove acceptance of illegal gratification. He cited several Supreme Court judgments, including B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. (2014), Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi (2016), and P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. The Dist. Inspector of Police and Ors. (2015), which held that mere possession or recovery of currency notes without proof of demand does not establish an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He also referenced Vineet Narain and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. (1998) and other cases, stressing the mandatory nature of guidelines in the CBI Manual for investigative functions like raids, seizure, and arrests. The defense argued that the FIR did not prima facie demonstrate that the CBI had followed these guidelines regarding source information or preliminary inquiry.
Furthermore, Mr. Chavan stated that Panda, as a government servant, was unlikely to abscond and had been in jail since his arrest, arguing that his continued detention was unnecessary as the initial seizure had already taken place.
Court’s Observation and Ruling
After hearing both sides, Judge Tamboli observed that while the CBI is not obligated to disclose the source of information, it must adhere to the guidelines specified in the CBI Manual. The court found that “the FIR does not prima facie shows about the steps taken by the CBI” regarding the source information.
Crucially, the court highlighted that “nobody has complained about the demand of the money by the present accused,” and the CBI did not catch the present accused “red-handed while accepting the money from co-accused.” This point aligned with the Supreme Court precedents cited by the defense, which underscore the necessity of proving demand for gratification.
The court also noted that the prosecution’s reply regarding the recorded conversation was “cryptic,” lacking specific details such as mobile numbers, time of recording, or detailed dialogues, and that such information was not present in the FIR.
Considering that the initial investigation, including the seizure of money from Panda’s cabin and residence, had already been completed, the court determined that Panda was “not required for further investigation.” While acknowledging the prosecution’s concern about witness tampering, the court stated that this alone could not be a sole ground for denying bail, and conditions could be imposed to mitigate this risk.
Given that the alleged offense is punishable by up to ten years imprisonment and considering all the facts, the court found it appropriate to release the accused on bail.
Bail Conditions
The court allowed Bail Application 105/2018 subject to the following conditions:
- Personal Recognizance (P. R.) Bond: Kalicharan Lambodar Panda is to be released on executing a P. R. Bond of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with one or two sureties of the like amount.
- Weekly Reporting: The accused must attend the office of CBI once a week, every Sunday, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., until the charge-sheet is filed.
- Travel Restriction: The accused shall not leave the country of India without the prior written permission of the court.
- Non-Interference: The accused shall not interfere with the investigation in any manner.
- No Tampering: The accused shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or any record related to the offense.
The court stated that if the accused violates any of these conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.