Vipin Sinha, J.—Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed in Court today, are taken on record.
Heard Sri, U.N. Sharma, Sri Satish Trivedi, Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey and Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi and Sri Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri N.B. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 107/13 under Sections 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, police station Mutthiganj, District Allahabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
2. I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the FIR and also the bail rejection order.
3. The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that in the entire report of the vigilance, there are some lacunae to the computation of income. It is further contended that even though the taxable income has been accepted but the ''incoming income'' has not been adjusted and an illustration has been given with regard to the daughter of the present applicant that even though the tax paid by her has been considered but her ''incoming income'' has not been adjusted and if the income of the applicant had been correctly computed keeping in mind the gross income (incoming of all the family members) then may be a case of the prosecution with regard to the commission of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act would have fallen. It is also contended that merely because some information with regard to the assets/properties have not been given to the Speaker of the House, the same will not make the present applicant an offender under the Prevention of Corruption Act or under the Indian Penal Code.
4. The basic contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the entire vigilance report is based upon certain transactions which have taken place. However, the nature of the said transactions have been viewed in an erroneous prospective. The contention is that the income of a person for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion of disproportionate asset has to be based upon the source of the income of the person plus the amount which the person shows as an expenditure for which rebate is granted the incoming income and the source of the said income. It has been argued that if the correct computation would have been done then it would not have been possible for the prosecuting agency to bring the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant even otherwise, if some income has been incorrectly shown or some part of income has been concealed or some information which was required to be given to the Speaker of the House in a necessary format has not been provided to the Speaker in the prescribed format will not invite a charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act and even otherwise if there is some material concealment with regard to the income then the applicant can be prosecuted under the provisions of the Income Tax Act itself which is a complete Code in itself and it also provides the manner and the machinery for prosecution under the Income Tax Act itself but merely on account of some minor aberration in the computation of income will not make the applicant an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has further been submitted that in the present case a charge-sheet has also been filed as far back as on 14.3.2016 meaning thereby investigation has already been completed and thus it has been contended that in view of the aforesaid facts and also in view of the fact that the entire evidence against the applicant even presuming the case of the prosecution is to be correct is in the form of documentary evidence, the present is not a case where any witnesses are to be examined or where the applicant can victimize the said witnesses even otherwise the applicant is not a Minister as on date. It is lastly contended that the applicant is in jail since 14.11.2016 and in case applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the investigation is now complete and a charge-sheet has already been submitted. No Investigation is now left.
6. Looking to the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed on 14.3.2016, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
7. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Dr. Rakesh Dhar Tripathi involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions :
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which he is suspected.
5. The applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
8. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it would be open to the opposite party to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.
9. However, it is further directed that the aforesaid case pending before the court below be decided expeditiously, if possible within a period of eight months strictly, on day to day basis in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and also in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2015 (3) SCC 220 if there is no legal impediment.
10. It is made clear that in case, the witnesses are not appearing before the court concerned, liberty is being given to the concerned court to take necessary coercive measures in accordance with law for ensuring the presence of the witnesses.
11. A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned court below for necessary compliance.
