IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application 1st No. 1549 of 2024 Sandeep Kumar ......Applicant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), S.P.E.- Dehradun …..Respondent Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the CBI. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The applicant has filed the present bail application, Sandeep Kumar, an Assistant Engineer in the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), Dehradun, in connection with Case Crime No. RC0072024A0004, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) at CBI, ACB, Dehradun. The case was registered based on a written complaint dated 15.04.2024 by Deepak Kumar Sharma, a government contractor, alleging that the applicant had demanded a bribe of ₹5,50,000 for allowing him to continue construction work at a Government Residential Colony at ITBP, Seemadwar, Dehradun, without obstruction. The complainant also submitted a telephonic conversation dated 12.04.2024, which purportedly contains the demand for a bribe. 2. Acting upon this complaint, the CBI laid a trap on 16.04.2024, during which the applicant was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting ₹1,00,000 as part of the demanded bribe from the complainant’s accountant, Bhopal Singh Chauhan. Following his arrest on 16.04.2024, the applicant was produced before the court and has remained in judicial custody since 17.04.2024. 1 The CBI filed a charge sheet on 13.06.2024, and the Special CBI Court, Dehradun, took cognisance on 06.07.2024. 3. The applicant had previously filed two bail applications before the Special CBI Court, Dehradun, which were rejected on 26.06.2024 (default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.) and 11.07.2024 (on merits). The court found that the charge sheet was filed within the time and that the seriousness of the offence, coupled with the risk of witness tampering, did not warrant bail. 4. In the present application before the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant has now added the ground of prolonged incarceration, contending that he has remained in judicial custody since 17.04.2024. Given the pendency of cases, the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. It has been argued that further detention would serve no purpose, as the investigation has already been completed, and the charge sheet has been filed. 5. The applicant asserts that he has been falsely implicated due to personal enmity with the complainant, who allegedly fabricated the case after the applicant objected to sub-standard work being done at the construction site. It has been submitted that the audio recording of the conversation dated 12.04.2024, relied upon by the CBI, is only a partial transcript, and the complainant has not provided the full conversation, which may provide the necessary context to exonerate the applicant. 6. The applicant has also challenged the credibility of the CBI’s trap proceedings, alleging that the bribe money was forcibly placed in his hands and that he was coerced into the situation. It is contended that his fingerprints were not found on the recovered bribe money, and there were no independent witnesses to the alleged acceptance of the bribe. Furthermore, it has been argued that the forensic report of his voice sample has not yet been submitted, which weakens the case against him. 7. Another ground raised by the applicant is the seizure of ₹20,49,500 from his residence, which he contends was lawfully acquired from the sale of his land on 09.04.2024 and has no connection with the present bribery case. The applicant submits that he is a law- abiding citizen with no past criminal record, is not a flight risk, and is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court. 8. The CBI has vehemently opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicant was caught red- handed accepting the bribe. A recorded telephone conversation dated 12.04.2024 corroborated this demand. The CBI has also recovered ₹20,49,500 in cash from the applicant’s residence, for which he has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. As a result, the CBI registered a Disproportionate Assets (DA) case (RC0072024A0005) on 25.05.2024, which is still under investigation. 9. The CBI contends that the applicant’s release on bail would jeopardise the trial proceedings, as the complainant is yet to be examined in court, and there is a strong likelihood that the applicant may influence or intimidate witnesses. The CBI argues that corruption cases require strict judicial scrutiny, and granting bail at this stage could set a wrong precedent and erode public trust in the justice system. 10. The CBI has also opposed the argument of prolonged incarceration, contending that delay in trial is not a valid ground for bail in corruption cases. The CBI asserts that the nature and gravity of the allegations against the applicant, coupled with the fact that the trial is at a crucial stage, make him ineligible for bail. The CBI has further pointed out that the applicant’s financial records indicate unexplained assets, which are currently under investigation in the Disproportionate Assets (DA) case, and releasing him at this stage may hamper ongoing inquiries. 11. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the potential risk of witness tampering, the ongoing financial investigation, and the fact that two bail applications have already been rejected, the CBI has urged the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present bail application. The court has carefully considered the arguments advanced by both parties and examined the case on record. 12. At the outset, it is settled law that mere length of incarceration cannot be a standalone ground for bail in cases involving economic offences, corruption, or bribery by public officials. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 has held that “economic offences constitute a separate category of crimes, as they involve deep-rooted conspiracies, misuse of public office, and significant financial implications for society.” The court, in that case,emphasised that corruption and financial fraud undermine the rule of law and public trust in governance, necessitating a stricter approach in granting bail. 13. In the present case, the applicant, while serving as an Assistant Engineer in CPWD, is alleged to have demanded and accepted a bribe to allow continued construction work, which directly affects public administration and government contracts. Therefore, the gravity of the allegations cannot be ignored when considering the question of bail. 14. The applicant has sought to argue that the delay in trial should weigh in Favor of his release. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466 has held that mere delay in a trial does not entitle an accused to bail in economic offences, particularly when serious allegations of corruption and bribery are involved. The court must balance personal liberty with the more significant public interest. The same principle was reiterated in CBI v. Vijay Sai Reddy (2013) 7 SCC 452, where the Supreme Court observed that in cases where prima facie material exists against the accused, continued detention is justified even in cases of prolonged custody. 15. In the present case, the trial has not commenced due to procedural reasons and not due to any deliberate delay by the state. Furthermore, the complainant is yet to be examined, and releasing the applicant at this stage could pose a serious risk of witness tampering and trial interference. 16. Another crucial factor against the applicant is the ongoing Disproportionate Assets (DA) investigation. The CBI has submitted that a search conducted at the applicant’s residence led to the seizure of ₹20,49,500 in cash, for which the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. This led to the registration of a separate DA case (RC0072024A0005) on 25.05.2024, which remains under investigation. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 has held that in cases involving multiple layers of allegations of corruption and illegal monetary gains, the court must exercise caution while considering bail, ensuring that the integrity of the investigation is not compromised. In the present case, the pendency of a separate financial investigation further strengthens the CBI’s contention that the applicant should not be released at this stage. 18. The applicant has sought to rely on the principle that bail should not be denied merely due to prolonged custody. However, in similar cases of financial offences, courts have consistently refused bail even after extended incarceration. 19. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Supreme Court denied bail to the accused in the 2G Spectrum Scam, despite their long period of incarceration, holding that economic offences involving public money must be treated differently from ordinary crimes. 20. A similar view was taken in Manoj Jayaswal v. CBI (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1232, where the Supreme Court held that economic offences strike at the foundation of financial governance, and courts must exercise extreme caution in granting bail in such matters. The facts of the present case reveal that the allegations against the applicant are severe, the evidence on record supports the charges, and the possibility of interference in the trial remains high. The claim of prolonged incarceration cannot override the considerations of public interest, the nature of the offence, and the risk to the trial process. 21. Accordingly, this court finds no valid ground to grant bail, and the present bail application stands rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 28.02.2025