Delay in FIR, violation of directions of SC apparent: CBI court while granting bail to Bhaskar Raman in Chinese visa case

New Delhi [India], June 10 (ANI): While granting bail to S Bhaskar Raman, an accused in the Chinese Visa case, the CBI court took a serious view on the non-compliance of the direction given by the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar case and delay in the registration of FIR.

The Court also said that the incriminating emails were in possession of the agency for 5 years.
buy levitra super force online no prescription
The Court on Thursday granted bail to S Bhaskar Raman, a close aide of Congress MP Karti Chidambaram.

"The alleged offences of this case were committed in the year 2011 and even recovery of alleged incriminating e-mails was effected in the year 2017. The recovery of around 93000 e-mails was effected from different e-mail account of the applicant during the search conducted in the year 2017 at the residence in the previous case connected to INX Media and backup thereof in a pen drive was taken," the court noted.

Special CBI Judge MK Nagpal observed, "The alleged incriminating material is stated to have been in possession of not only the CBI but also of the DoE in the previous cases for a

period of around 5 years prior to registration of this case and enough time was available with CBI to scrutinize the said emails and to act on the basis thereof in case any of the said emails showed any further commission of offences by the applicant or the other coaccused,

apart from the cases already registered against them."

"Hence, even if the time for taking action is calculated from the year 2017, the registration of present FIR against the applicant is apparently delayed," the court said.

The CBI Judge further observed that the violation of directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar and the provisions of Section 41A of the CrPC is apparent in this case from a bare perusal of contents of the notice given to the applicant on May 17, 2022.

The language of notice shows that it has been given to the applicant as the investigating agency was of the view that the present case was covered by the directions given by the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar case and it was a case where the arrest of the accused was not required, the court noted.

The Court said, "Still the investigating agency has tried to play smart while clubbing the provisions of Section 41A (1) with Section 41 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., which empowers a police officer to arrest without warrants an accused against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed an offence, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term upto 7 years, if the conditions as laid down in the said clause (b) subsection (1) of Section 41 Cr.P.C. are satisfied."

The court said that the search at the residence of the applicant was conducted on 17 May 2022 from 7.30 am to 6 pm and thereafter he was taken to the CBI office. It is further admitted that notice was then served upon the applicant in the CBI office and though, the given time for joining of an investigation by the applicant was 6.30 pm, notice is alleged to have been given only at around 8.30 pm.

"Even if it is taken that the notice was given prior to 6.30 pm, but it comes out clearly from the above that the accused was virtually and physically in the custody of CBI officials at the time of its service and thus, he had no liberty to have recourse to the legal remedies or to surrender himself in the court of a Judicial Magistrate, as offered in the said notice," the court observed.

Thus, the manner of execution or service of the notice U/S 41A Cr.P.C. to the applicant has frustrated the very purpose of incorporating the provisions regarding its service in the said Section as well as the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar case, the court noted.

The Court also pointed out, "It is also not the case of CBI, that the alleged bribe amount of Rs 50 lakhs was meant for the applicant or he was the ultimate beneficiary as allegations against him are only for acting as a front or middleman for the coaccused Karti P. Chidambaram and accepting the bribe amount on behalf of the said coaccused to get approval for reuse of the Project Visas."

"The evidence in respect to alleged payment of the amount of Rs50 lakhs as bribe by M/s Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd (TSPL) to M/s Bell Tools Ltd (BTL) is in the form of bank transaction and through a cheque and it is documentary in nature and even the evidence in the form of incriminating emails and alleged fake invoices pertaining to this case is documentary and hence, there cannot be any possibility of tampering thereof by the applicant," the court said.

The Court underlined that the evidence pertaining to violation of the guidelines or policy is not expected to be with the present applicant as the said evidence will best be available in the files of concerned department of MHA, which was responsible for enforcing the said

guidelines, and it has also been submitted on behalf of CBI that they are in the process of obtaining or seizing the said documentary evidence.

The Court also said that there is also no evidence collected by the CBI to date to show any meeting between the applicant or any public servant and though, some incriminating emails in connection with the disputed transactions are stated to be there between him, the co-accused Vikas Makharia and Karti P. Chidambaram and others, but it cannot be ignored.

"Again, it is not the case of CBI that the applicant had tried to tamper with evidence or to influence the witnesses of any of the previous cases and he was granted bail in all these cases while also holding him to be not a flight risk. The apprehensions regarding tampering of evidence or influencing of the witnesses by the applicant does not appear to be reasonable," the court noted in the order granting bail to accused Bhaskar Raman. (ANI)

Source: National