SHIVPAL SINGH CHAUDHARI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr.N. D. Nanavati appearing with learned Advocate Mr.A. S. Timbalia for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.14592 of 2022 and learned Sr. Advocate Mr.J.M. Panchal appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Samir Gogda for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.14611 of 2022.

(2.) By way of these applications under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants - original accused pray for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.RC0292022A0003 of 2022 registered with CBI/ACB/Gandhinagar, District Gandhinagar on 15/7/2022 for offences punishable under Ss. 120-B of IPC and under Ss. 7, 7A and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018).

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr.Nanavati would submit that one Mr.T.P. Singh, who was an employee of applicant of 14592 of 2022 had paid amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 to the above referred Mr.Digvijay Mishra and whereas immediately after the bribe amount had been delivered, the said Mr.T. P. Singh had been arrested and the bag given by said Mr.Singh to Mr.Digvijay Mishra containing the amount in question had been recovered from the possession of Mr.Mishra. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati would summit that while undoubtedly the present applicant is the Managing Director of the company in which Mr Singh was working and whereas as of now there is no material to show that the amount had been paid at the instance of the present applicant. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati would submit that as a matter of fact from the material produced by the CBI, more particularly affidavit-in-reply as well as the order of the learned Sessions Court, it becomes apparent that the said Mr.Singh had also acted on behalf of the other Companies, more particularly acted as an agent for the Chief General Manager of NHAI. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati would submit that the present applicant is the Managing Director of the Company and whereas the applicant may not be vicariously imposed with a criminal liability for the acts of his employee, more particularly when it clearly appears that the employee was also acting as an agent for the public servant in question. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati would further submit that the applicant had been served with a notice under Sec. 41-A of Cr. P.C., by Investigating Officer on 19/7/2022 asking the applicant to appear before the I.O on 20/7/2022 and in response thereto, the applicant had immediately written a communication to the investigating officer on 20/7/2022 informing that the applicant having returned from the international travel was not feeling well and had consciously isolated himself from others and while the applicant requested for 2 weeks' time for appearing in person, he had also requested that he may be permitted to appear through virtual mode. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati would submit that the prompt reply and the request to appear through online mode clearly shows that the applicant was ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati would submit that even otherwise the applicant is ready and willing to appear before the investigating officer on any date as may be deemed appropriate by this Court and whereas in such context, it is requested that the applicant may be accorded with protection. It has also been submitted by the Senior Advocate that the maximum punishment that could be imposed upon the applicant insofar as the offenses alleged is upto 7 years. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Nanavati , even in the said context, would submit that looking to the nature of the offences and probable punishment and the role attributed to the present applicant, this Court may exercise discretion in favour of applicant and release applicant on pre-arrest bail.