Mumbai, August 19, 2022 – Amitava Dutta, a 49-year-old public servant, has been granted bail by the Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay in a bribery case. Special Judge S. H. Gwalani ordered Dutta’s release on a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties of the like amount.
Dutta, who was arrested on August 6, 2022, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2 lakh as the first installment of a total bribe of Rs. 2.91 lakh. The alleged bribe was sought to settle a notice for unpaid employee contributions amounting to Rs. 11,62,854, issued by Dutta in his capacity as a public servant. The case was registered under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Allegations and Investigation
The case originated from a complaint filed by Hitesh Desai on July 11, 2022, who received a notice from Dutta regarding outstanding employee contributions from his company. Desai contended that the actual amount due was significantly less, at Rs. 3,39,078.
According to the prosecution, when Desai met Dutta on July 20, 2022, to discuss the matter, Dutta allegedly asked him to settle the notice by paying a 15% bribe of the total notice amount. A trap was subsequently laid on August 5, 2022, during which Dutta was reportedly caught red-handed accepting Rs. 2 lakh. This amount was recovered from him.
A subsequent house search of Dutta’s residence led to the recovery of a substantial cash amount of Rs. 20,18,300, in addition to Rs. 19,383 from his purse and another Rs. 25,000. The CBI contended that this large cash recovery suggested Dutta was “habitual in taking bribe.”
Defense and Prosecution Arguments
Mr. Pranav Badeka, advocate for Dutta, argued that the allegations were false and baseless, and that his client was wrongly implicated. He asserted that the arrest memo and remand application were contradictory, and that even if the Rs. 2 lakh recovery was admitted, further custody was unnecessary as all evidence was documentary. Mr. Badeka emphasized that Dutta, as a public servant, had deep roots in society, would be readily available for investigation, and would not abscond or tamper with evidence or witnesses. He also highlighted that Dutta was already suspended from his service, making access to office documents remote.
Mr. Jitendra K. Sharma, the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, strongly opposed the bail application. He reiterated the prosecution’s case, presenting corroborating evidence including recorded conversations where Dutta allegedly demanded 25% of the notice amount. Mr. Sharma pointed to the recovery of the Rs. 2 lakh bribe money, confirmed by hand wash tests, and the significant cash recovered from Dutta’s home, for which he could not provide a satisfactory explanation. The SPP argued that the investigation was in its initial stages, with statements of crucial witnesses yet to be recorded, and expressed apprehension that Dutta, being a highly influential senior officer, could influence witnesses and tamper with evidence if released on bail. He also mentioned that a witness, Nitin Bandre, had given a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., corroborating the prosecution’s story and indicating that he had previously collected similar “parcels and envelopes” for Dutta.
Court’s Decision
Judge S. H. Gwalani considered the nature and seriousness of the accusation, the severity of the offenses, the evidence collected, and the character of the accused. The court acknowledged that the punishment for the invoked offenses (Section 120-B IPC and Section 7 of the PC Act) is up to seven years.
The judge noted that Dutta was arrested on August 6, 2022, and was initially in police custody before being remanded to judicial custody on August 10, 2022. This, the court observed, suggested that “custodial interrogation with police is not required.” The court also highlighted that during Dutta’s judicial custody, the statement of witness Nitin Bandre was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and other witness statements and electronic evidence had also been collected.
Referring to previous Supreme Court judgments in P. Chidambaram vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, the court emphasized that “Liberty is one of the most essential requirements of the modern man” and that “mere that any economic offence has been registered cannot be a sole ground to refuse anticipatory bail or regular bail.”
Ultimately, the court found that there was “no need to have custodial interrogation of applicant/accused” at this stage, especially given his suspension from service, which reduced the possibility of him accessing office documents. While acknowledging the CBI’s apprehension regarding witness influencing and evidence tampering, the court deemed these allegations “vague and of general nature” and stated that such concerns could be addressed by imposing suitable conditions.
Bail Conditions
The court imposed the following conditions for Dutta’s bail:
- He must execute a P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
- He is prohibited from directly or indirectly influencing or threatening any person acquainted with the case facts or tampering with evidence.
- He must provide his detailed permanent and native residential addresses along with his mobile number to the court and the Investigating Officer, and intimate any changes in advance.
- He shall not abscond, must make himself available for investigation, cooperate with the Investigating Officer, and attend the CBI Office, Mumbai, as and when required.
- He shall not leave India without prior permission of the court.
The bail application was disposed of accordingly. The order was signed on August 20, 2022.