LAWS(P&H)-2020-9-90

GURVINDER SINGH SOHAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Decided On September 17, 2020
Gurvinder Singh Sohal Appellant
V/S
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.RC0052020A013 dated 13.8.2020 registered under Section 120B IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amended in 2018) at Police Station, CBI ACB, Chandigarh.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is working as Superintendent in the office of Commissioner of CGST, Rohtak. He further submits that the petitioner and the other officials, in compliance of a public notice issued by the department that the hand-sanitizers are taxable at 18% GST w.e.f. 1.7.2017, conducted a raid in the premises of complainant Manoj Kalra and the complainant was found evading 6% tax of GST, therefore, he was directed to pay the tax and in that process, the complainant has falsely trapped the petitioner and the other accused.

(3.) Learned senior counsel has further argued that as per the allegations/version of CBI, the petitioner and the other officials has raided the premises of the complainant on 6.8.2020 and on that day, 03 other co-employees of the petitioner, namely, Kuldeep Hooda, Superintendent; Rohit Malik, Inspector and Pardeep Inspector pressurised the complainant to pay Rs.09 Lacs as bribe. It is further the case of the CBI that the petitioner and co-accused demanded Rs.12 Lacs but a deal was settled for Rs.09 lacs and complainant was directed by the petitioner to pay Rs.04 lacs as part payment of bribe on that day. The complainant, however, handed over Rs.03 lacs in a polythene bag by keeping the same in the car of the petitioner and this fact is recorded in the CCTV. Later on, on the same day, the complainant received a phone call from the petitioner, wherein he in a coded language stated "WO SAMAAN TEEN KILO HI NIKLA HAI", meaning thereby, the amount was Rs.03 lacs only. On this, the complainant was directed to come to the office of the petitioner.