Mumbai, August 19, 2022 (CBI Special Court): The Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay, presided over by Special Judge S. H. Gwalani (Court Room No. 48), has granted bail to Mr. Amitava Dutta, a 49-year-old public servant, who was arrested in connection with a bribery case.
Dutta was booked under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (criminal conspiracy) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in R.C. No. 3/S/2022/CBI/STB/Mumbai, following a trap laid by the CBI.
Prosecution’s Case in Brief:
The prosecution’s case stated that the first informant, Hitesh Desai, received a notice from Dutta demanding ₹11,62,854 towards employee’s contribution for his company for the period July to September 2019. Desai contended that the actual payable amount was only ₹3,39,078. During a meeting on July 20, 2022, Desai informed Dutta about technical issues preventing challan uploads, which had been communicated to the department in December 2019.
The prosecution further alleged that on July 25, 2022, Dutta asked Desai to pay 15% of the notice amount as a bribe to settle the issue. Dutta allegedly suggested changes in Desai’s representation and asked him to meet again on August 4, 2022. It was further alleged that Dutta agreed to accept ₹2,00,000 as the first installment of the total bribe of ₹2.91 lakhs on August 5, 2022.
On August 5, 2022, a trap was laid, and Dutta was allegedly caught red-handed while demanding and accepting ₹2,00,000, which was recovered from him. He was apprehended and formally arrested on August 6, 2022. A subsequent house search allegedly led to the recovery of ₹20,18,300 in cash, along with smaller amounts from his person.
Applicant’s Arguments for Bail:
Dutta claimed that the allegations were false and baseless, and no prima facie case was made out against him. He argued that the arrest memo and remand application were contradictory. Even assuming the recovery of ₹2,00,000, he contended that his further custody was unnecessary as no purpose would be served by keeping him in jail.
Dutta’s counsel argued that all evidence was documentary, and the verification of the first informant was already done. Therefore, there was no possibility of Dutta tampering with evidence or witnesses. Being a public servant, he was easily available for investigation, and there was no risk of him absconding. He undertook to remain present before the Investigating Agency and cooperate.
CBI’s Strong Opposition:
The CBI strongly opposed the bail, citing recorded conversations where Dutta allegedly demanded 25% of the notice amount and agreed to accept ₹2 lakhs as the first installment. The recovery of ₹2 lakhs from Dutta in the presence of witnesses and the positive handwash test were presented as evidence of bribe acceptance. The CBI argued that the recovery of over ₹20 lakhs in cash from Dutta’s residence indicated a habitual acceptance of bribes, and his explanation for the cash was unsatisfactory.
The CBI contended that the investigation was at an initial stage, with statements of key witnesses yet to be recorded and crucial documents to be recovered from Dutta’s office. Given his influential position as the second senior-most officer, there was a strong apprehension that he might influence witnesses and tamper with evidence if released on bail, thereby hampering the investigation.
Court’s Observations and Reasoning:
Special Judge S. H. Gwalani considered the arguments and the case diary. While acknowledging the recovery of the bribe money and the cash from Dutta’s residence, the court noted that the offences invoked carried a maximum punishment of seven years.
The court observed that Dutta was arrested on August 6, 2022, and remanded to judicial custody on August 10, 2022, indicating that his custodial interrogation was no longer required. Furthermore, during his judicial custody, the statement of a witness, Nitin Bandre, was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., corroborating the prosecution’s story and mentioning previous instances of collecting parcels for Dutta. Other witnesses’ statements were also recorded, and electronic evidence and voice samples were collected.
The court noted the applicant’s suspension from service, reducing the possibility of accessing office documents. It concluded that prima facie, further custodial interrogation was not necessary. Regarding the apprehension of witness influence and evidence tampering, the court found the allegations vague and general, which could be addressed by imposing conditions.
In light of the discussion and the facts of the matter, the court was inclined to grant bail to Dutta.
The Bail Order:
Special Judge S. H. Gwalani passed the following order:
- Bail Application No. 534 of 2022 is allowed.
- Applicant/accused Amitava Dutta shall be released on bail on his executing a P.R. Bond of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or more sureties in a like amount.
- The 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.
- He shall furnish his detailed permanent residential address and native residence along with his mobile number to the Court and the Investigating Officer. Any change in address or mobile number shall be intimated in advance.
- He shall not abscond and shall make himself available for investigation purposes, cooperate with the Investigating Officer, and attend the CBI Office, Mumbai, as and when required until further order.
- He shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
- The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.
The grant of bail to Amitava Dutta was subject to stringent conditions aimed at ensuring his cooperation with the ongoing investigation and preventing any obstruction of justice. The court balanced the seriousness of the allegations with the progress of the investigation and the applicant’s status as a public servant.