Mumbai, November 28, 2017 – The Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Bombay, Shri Vivek V. Kathare (C.R.No.53), granted bail to Jaipal Swami, a 38-year-old IRS Officer serving as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in Mumbai. Swami was arrested in connection with a bribery case (RC BA/ 1/2017/A0027-Mumbai) registered by CBI/ACB, Mumbai, under Sections 7, 12, 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution’s case alleged that Swami, as accused No. 1, demanded illegal gratification from Mr. A. Mutthu, Director of M/s. SAF Yeast Company Pvt. Ltd., for passing an Assessment Order in favor of the company. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were allegedly caught accepting ₹3 crores on Swami’s behalf during a trap operation on September 22, 2017. The prosecution claimed that during the trap, accused Kamlesh Shah made a call to Swami confirming the receipt of cheques, indicating Swami’s acceptance of the demanded bribe. Swami and the two other accused were arrested on the same day and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.

Swami’s earlier bail application was rejected by the court on October 4, 2017, although the bail applications of the co-accused were later allowed.

In the present application, Ld. Adv. Mr. Sujay Kantawala, representing Swami, argued that with the filing of the charge sheet by the prosecution on November 18, 2017, the investigation was complete. He pointed out that all necessary searches had been conducted, and various documents and storage devices had been seized. Therefore, Swami’s further custodial interrogation was unwarranted.

Advocate Kantawala further contended that Swami was a permanent resident of Mumbai with family responsibilities and was the sole bread earner, making him unlikely to abscond if released on bail. He also highlighted Swami’s suspension and transfer to Kochi, Kerala, arguing that this would prevent him from attending his former office and thus eliminate the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

SPP Mr. Fareed, representing the CBI/ACB, opposed the bail application, asserting that prima facie evidence showed Swami’s involvement in a serious offense. He argued that Swami’s release would lead to the tampering of evidence and the influencing of witnesses.

The court, after hearing both sides, acknowledged the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet as a significant change in circumstances since the previous bail rejection. The court referred to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing that the object of bail is to secure the accused’s appearance at trial, not to punish or preventively detain them. Deprivation of liberty should be considered a punishment unless necessary to ensure the accused stands trial.

The court considered the seriousness of the charges and the potential punishment but also weighed Swami’s availability during trial and the likelihood of him tampering with evidence. While the Ld. SPP argued that Swami’s release would send a wrong message to society, the court reiterated the principle from Sanjay Chandra that the right to bail should not be denied merely due to community sentiment. The primary purpose of bail is to relieve the accused of imprisonment pending trial while ensuring their presence in court.

Regarding the prosecution’s apprehension of Swami absconding or tampering with witnesses, the court noted Swami’s suspension and transfer to Kochi, as evidenced by the office order dated November 3, 2017. The court also acknowledged that all relevant documents had been seized and sent for expert opinion. In these circumstances, the court found it unlikely that Swami could tamper with the seized articles or influence witnesses, whose statements had already been recorded. Therefore, continued detention would cause undue hardship.

The court distinguished the present case from the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddi V/s. CBI, where bail was rejected even after the filing of charge sheets. The court pointed out that in that case, the CBI was filing successive charge sheets as the investigation was ongoing, unlike the present scenario where the investigation was stated to be complete with the filing of the charge sheet.

The court made it clear that if the Investigating Officer found any attempt by Swami to pressure witnesses or tamper with evidence while on bail, the prosecution was at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail. However, detaining him solely on such apprehension was not a fruitful approach.

Finally, while acknowledging the prosecution’s concern that Swami, being a high-ranking officer, might influence witnesses, the court also noted that his status and position could indicate roots in society, making him less likely to flee from the legal process. These apprehensions could be addressed by imposing adequate and reasonable conditions for bail.

In view of the above, the court allowed the bail application with the following conditions:

1. Swami shall be released on bail upon executing a P. R. Bond of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one or two solvent sureties of a like amount.
2. Swami shall mark his attendance with the Investigating Officer as and when required under written intimation, until further orders.
3. Swami shall furnish his permanent residential address with documentary proof and the cell numbers of himself and two close relatives, and notify any change in address.
4. Swami shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission from the court and shall surrender his passport to the Registrar Sessions as a condition precedent for his release.
5. Swami shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police, nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
6. Swami shall not indulge in any criminal activities during the bail period.

The court clarified that any breach of these conditions would entitle the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail. The application was disposed of accordingly.

This order highlights the significance of the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet as a crucial factor in considering bail applications, even in serious corruption cases. The court balanced the gravity of the offense with the accused’s right to liberty and the need to ensure their presence at trial, while also addressing concerns about potential interference with the judicial process through specific bail conditions.