PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for Petitioner as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. and perused the relevant documents placed before me.

(2.) Contention of the learned Counsel for Petitioner is that the investigating agency is proceeding only against the Petitioner, who is not a public servant. They have neither arrested any public servant nor are proceeding against any public servant for whose purpose alleged illegal gratification was proposed to be given. It is contended that the entire case is based on demand of some money and acceptance of cheque therefore as commission for arranging the loan. Unless any public service was joined for commission of offence under Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, offence under Sec. 120B IPC alone would not be maintained against the Petitioner. In support of his argument, learned Counsel for Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Ramesh Balkrishna Kulkarni v/s. State of Maharashtra : : AIR 1985 SC 1655. It was further argued that even otherwise maximum punishment for commission of offence Under Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is five years. Petitioner is in jail since 14/6/2010 and investigation will take time.

(3.) Learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. has opposed the bail application.