Anticipatory Bail Denied to Alleged Tout in CBI Bribery Case at Inland Container Depot.


23 April 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Corruption >> Criminal Law  

In Kuldeep v/s Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI)., the accused/applicant sought anticipatory bail concerning an offense under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution, led by the CBI, alleges that following a raid at the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, the applicant, a non-public servant, fled the scene while two public servants and three other non-public servants were apprehended. The prosecution's case is that the applicant acted as a tout, facilitating the handover of bribes to public officials for the smooth clearance of import-export consignments.

The applicant's counsel argued that the CBI's initial report (RC) did not specify the applicant's role and that he was falsely implicated. However, the CBI's Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) countered by stating that the applicant was specifically named in the RC and that lawfully obtained audio recordings clearly implicated him as a tout. The SPP further pointed out the recovery of Rs. 19,00,000/- in cash from the applicant's premises and his failure to surrender his mobile phone to the investigating officer despite requests.


 

 

In response, the applicant's counsel claimed the recovered cash belonged to his father's chit fund and loan activities. Regarding the mobile phone, it was stated that it was misplaced and non-functional, hence no police complaint was filed. When questioned, the applicant's counsel could not provide a reason for the alleged false implication.

The court, after reviewing the RC and transcripts of the audio recordings, found prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the crime. The court agreed with the prosecution that custodial investigation was necessary to identify the individuals the applicant was recorded speaking with and to obtain his voice sample. The explanation for not handing over the mobile phone was deemed unconvincing.

Considering the nature of the offense and the ongoing stage of the investigation, the court concluded that it was not a suitable case for granting anticipatory bail and consequently dismissed the application.


Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988  

Section 61, BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA - 2023  

BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023