Mumbai, May 2, 2018 – The Special Judge for CBI at Greater Bombay, Shri M. G. Deshpande, today granted bail to Mrs. Jagriti Prakash Gupta, a Labour Enforcement Officer (accused No. 2) who was arrested by the CBI, ACB, Mumbai, in connection with a bribery case. Gupta was in judicial custody for offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Gupta’s bail application (No. 302 of 2018, arising from Remand Application No. 442 of 2018) was strongly opposed by the CBI, who contended that it should be rejected. However, after hearing the arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri Sanjay Jadhav for the accused and Ld. SPP Shri Sandeep Singh for the CBI, the court decided to grant bail.

Facts of the Case:

According to the CBI’s case, they received reliable information that a co-accused, Aashish Aggarwal, would deliver a demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,20,000/- in three packets to accused No. 1 Shyamalendu Kumar Das, the applicant Mrs. Jagruti Gupta, and other officers of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) on April 20, 2018, at their office in Sion (East), Mumbai. The bribe was allegedly in lieu of issuing a Labour Contract License to M/s. Som Projects Pvt. Ltd.

The CBI’s trap was successful, and on April 20, 2018, accused No. 1 and the applicant, Mrs. Jagruti Gupta, were allegedly caught accepting envelopes containing bribe amounts of Rs. 70,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-, and Rs. 30,000/- respectively. Subsequently, the representatives of M/s. Som Projects Pvt. Ltd. collected the labor license and certificate. The bribe money was recovered from the possession of the accused. Searches were also conducted at the residential and office premises of the applicant and co-accused, and incriminating documents were seized.

Arguments for Bail:

The applicant’s grounds for bail included:

• False implication in a concocted case.
• The alleged offences not attracting the punishable sections.
• No demand for bribe by the applicant and lack of acquaintance with other accused.
• The case being based on completed searches and seizures, negating the need for further detention.
• The possibility of the applicant’s acquittal.
• Bail being the rule and jail the exception.
• Assurance of not jumping bail or tampering with evidence.
• No prior criminal record.
• Undertaking to abide by all terms and conditions.

CBI’s Objections:

The CBI strongly opposed the bail, citing the following reasons:

• Successful trap with the applicant accepting the bribe money.
• Investigation being at an initial stage with incriminating documents recovered indicating involvement in corrupt practices.
• Sufficient documentary and circumstantial evidence against the applicant.
• Applicant not being a permanent resident of Mumbai, raising the possibility of absconding.
• Crucial stage of investigation and the applicant being influential, posing a risk of witness tampering.
• Intercepted recorded calls of the accused under analysis, potentially revealing involvement of subordinate officials.
• Seriousness of the offence requiring a strong message to society.
• Assurance of completing the investigation within the prescribed time.

Court’s Observations and Order:

Special Judge M. G. Deshpande carefully examined all the arguments and the facts presented. The court acknowledged the successful trap and the recovery of the bribe money. However, it also noted that the searches at the applicant’s residence had been conducted, and relevant documents seized, as indicated in the Remand Application dated April 21, 2018. The court also observed that recorded conversations were already in the possession of the Investigating Officer.

The court addressed the CBI’s contention that the applicant was not a resident of Mumbai, highlighting that the applicant is a woman Central Government Officer with a 3-year-old daughter who has no one else to care for her. The court also pointed out the uncertainty of the charge sheet being filed soon and the trial commencing immediately.

Special Judge Deshpande stated that there were no overwhelming circumstances indicating an exceptional need for the endless detention of the woman accused. The court believed that imposing certain conditions could secure her presence and address the CBI’s apprehension. The court also noted that the CBI’s own submissions suggested that the investigation was almost over, and no prior criminal antecedents of the applicant were pointed out. The punishment for the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC also did not necessitate prolonged pre-trial detention, especially with conditions in place.

The court found the CBI’s apprehension of witness influence could also be safeguarded by imposing appropriate conditions.

In conclusion, the court passed the following order:

1. Bail Application No. 302 of 2018 is allowed.
2. Applicant accused No. 2 Jagriti Gupta shall be released on bail by furnishing a P. R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- and a surety bond of a like amount (Solvency Certificate or two sureties each of Rs. 15,000/-).
3. As requested, the applicant is permitted to deposit Rs. 30,000/- as cash security along with the P.R. Bond and Surety Bond for three weeks until she furnishes the sureties.
4. Applicant shall furnish the CBI and the Court with correct details of her temporary and permanent residential addresses, office address with landline and mobile phone numbers, email IDs, and shall undertake to provide any future changes.
5. Applicant shall also furnish the name and all particulars (address, mobile, landline numbers, email IDs) of an authorized person whom the CBI and Court can contact in case of her absence.
6. Applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer/CBI, ACB, Mumbai, once a week on every Friday between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm until further order. The CBI shall maintain a record and report any non-compliance to the Court immediately.
7. Applicant shall deposit her passport with the CBI.
8. Applicant shall not leave India without the Court’s permission and shall scrupulously attend every court date.
9. Breach of any of the above conditions will be grounds for cancellation of bail.

This order reflects the court’s balancing of the need for investigation with the individual’s right to liberty, especially considering the applicant’s personal circumstances and the stage of the investigation. The stringent conditions imposed aim to ensure the applicant’s cooperation with the ongoing investigation and her presence during the trial.