2025:JHHC:16304 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4330 of 2025 ------ Sahil Ratusaria, age about 33 years, UID 829485943179, S/o Shri Mangal Ratusaria, R/o- C K Iron Store, Old A.T. Road, P.O & P.S.- Haibourgaon, Khuti Katia, Dist. Nagaon, Assam-782002 Present Address; Qtrs. No.P-76/4, Litchi Bagan, P.O & P.S.-Namkum, Dist: Ranchi …. …. Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI .... .... Opp. Party CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Verma, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Spl. P.P. to CBI Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to Spl. P.P. ------ 04/Dated: 20.06.2025 Prayer 1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in connection with R.C. Case No. 02(A)/2025-R, registered for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018, now pending in the court of learned Spl. Judge, C.B.I.- cum-Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi. Factual Matrix 2. The prosecution case, on the basis of handwritten report, in brief as under: - One RC 02(A)/2025-R dated 19.03.2025, had been registered on basis of handwritten report of one Pawan Kumar Dubey and Amod Kumar Pandey, both partners of M/S Amod Kumar Pandey, to 2025:JHHC:16304 2 CBI on 24.02.2025, wherein, the informants have stated that they are carrying out repair works at M.Η. Building and the site for the work was handed over to from the unit in the month of October and the time period for completing the work is till March and for which, the bill is pending. Thereafter, they met and said that in this work, the time period is till March and because the concerned user whose unit is, also were given letter to hand over the site, which makes it self-evident that site was handed over late. After lots of persuasion, bill was prepared on 14.02.2025 but, till today, bill has not been released due to not giving of money. Bill is of 27 Lakhs approximately and at the rate of 2% demand is for Rs. 54,000/-. It further appears that the said complaint of the informants was verified by CBI officials and after verifying the same, he submitted report and thereafter, finding the allegation prima facie true, the present First Information Report has been registered. Subsequent to the lodging of First Information Report, a trap team was constituted consisting of C.B.I. officials including the informants and two independent witnesses and a pre-trap formality was conducted and after conducting pre-trap formalities, a pre-trap memorandum was prepared. Trap team after completing all pre-trap formalities laid a trap on 19.03.2025, in which, the petitioner was caught for directing the complainants/informants to pay the bribe amount of Rs. 40,500/- to Philip Xalxo, Cashier on his behalf. 2025:JHHC:16304 3 Thereafter after completing formalities, Rs. 40,500/- recovered and the case was instituted against present petitioner and co- accused Philip Xalxo u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and charge sheet has also been submitted in this case against the petitioner and co-accused Philip Xalxo u/s 61(2) of the BNS 2023 read with Section 7 of the Act, 1988. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner 3. Mr. Rakesh Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case and has committed no offence as alleged in the First Information Report. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged bribe amount has not been recovered from the conscious and constructive possession of the petitioner. 5. It has further been contended that the conspiracy was hatches up by the informants to take revenge as the petitioner was always insisting on quality work from them and for completion of projects within stipulated time. The petitioner has issued a slow progress letter and show cause to the firm of the informants in accordance with rules and regulations governing the Contract Agreement. 6. It has been submitted that it is well settled law that when the money was neither demanded nor recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner then no case under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 1988) is made out against the petitioner. 2025:JHHC:16304 4 7. It has been contended that the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent. 8. It has been submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.03.2025, Since the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for about three months, therefore, any further detention of Petitioner/Applicant shall tantamount to inflicting punishment upon the Petitioner/Applicant without affording him an opportunity to prove his innocence during trial. 9. It has further been contended that the petitioner satisfies the “TRIPLE TEST” of having unblemished life without any criminal antecedents, being deeply integrated into society, and being willing to comply with any conditions set for their release on bail and to face trial. Further, the Petitioner/Applicants release shall not in any manner prejudice either the investigation or trial. 10. On the aforesaid grounds the learned counsel for appellant has submitted that petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Submission of the learned Spl. P.P. for the Opp. Party-CBI 11. While on the other hand, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the Opp. Party-CBI, however, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 12. It has been contended that the petitioner has demanded Rs.54,000/- as bribe for clearing the bills and co-accused Philip Xalxo in the statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S. 2025:JHHC:16304 5 has confessed that he has received the aforesaid money from the complainants at the behest of the petitioner. 13. It has further been contended that during the house search of the petitioner, Rs.79.50 lakhs cash was recovered from his garage and scrutiny of the seized documents is in progress to ascertain the acquisition of assets by him. The said garage was handed over to the petitioner along with attached quarter and the same was under the control of the petitioner as one bullet motorcycle of petitioner was also found in the said garage, therefore, the present petitioner does not deserve the privilege of regular bail. Analysis 14. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. Before delving in to the merit of the case, it requires to refer herein the core of Section 7 of Act 1988, for ready reference the same is being quoted as under: “7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.—Any public servant who,— (a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or (b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or (c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly 2025:JHHC:16304 6 or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1.—For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper. Explanation 2.—For the purpose of this section,— (i) the expressions “obtains” or “accepts” or “attempts to obtain” shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or “accepts” or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means; (ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party.]” 16. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act, 1988. Further, in an offence under Section 7 of the Act, 1988, the points requiring proof are: (i) That, the accused at the time of the offence was, or expected to be, a public servant; (ii) that, he accepted or retained or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain from some person a gratification; (iii) that, such gratification was not a legal remuneration due to him; (iv) that, he accepted such gratification as a motive or reward, proof of which is essential for (a) doing or forbearing to do an official act, or 2025:JHHC:16304 7 (b) showing or forbearing to show favour or dis-favour to someone in exercise of his official functions, or (c) rendering or attempting to render any service, or disservice to someone, with the legislative or executive government, or with any public servant. 17. It needs to refer herein that the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reference, in this regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7 Scale 15, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed which reads as under: “28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” 2025:JHHC:16304 8 18. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court now adverting to the factual aspects of the present case. 19. It appears from the record that there is no bribe money alleged to have been recovered from the physical and conscious possession of the present petitioner. 20. Further, save and except the statement of Philip Xalxo as recorded u/s 183 of the BNSS wherein it has been admitted that he had received the bribe money which was paid in lieu of clearance of bills has been accepted at the behest of the present petitioner, nothing substantial has come on record against the present petitioner. 21. So far as the recovery of the cash in tune of Rs.79.50 lakhs from the garage of the petitioner during the house search is concerned, it has come in the counter affidavit that scrutiny of the seized documents is in progress to ascertain the acquisition of assets by him disproportionate to his known source of income, since charge-sheet has already been submitted, wherein, no acquisition has been said to be made by the prosecuting agency regarding the recovery of cash to the tune of Rs.79.50 lakhs. 22. 22. Further from the rough transcript of the conversation as available on the recovery cum seizure Memo, prima facie it appears that petitioner had never handled any cash from the complainant/informants rather the petitioner is saying to the 2025:JHHC:16304 9 informants that anything related to bill is to be handed over to the cashier as he is the one who keeps accounts of TDS, GST etc. 23. Further, no bribe money has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and the charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.03.2025. 24. On the basis of discussion made hereinabove and taking into consideration the period of custody as also applying the principle the Court is not required to go into a detailed examination of evidence at this stage, is of view that the instant bail application deserves to be allowed. 25. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed. 26. In consequence thereof, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Spl. Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi, in connection with R.C. Case No. 02(A)/2025-R, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial, failing which, the learned trial court is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 27. It is needless to clarify that during trial the case of the petitioner shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this 2025:JHHC:16304 10 Court as this Court has only considered herein that whether the petitioner deserves to be granted bail or not. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Rohit/-