1 2025:CGHC:39967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5456 of 2025 Manoj Pathak S/o Nand Kumar Pathak, R/o Harsh Kunj, Kalyan Sundaram Apartment, Tikrapara, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant(s) Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Superintendent Of Police, Central Bureau Of Investigation, AC-II, New Delhi, Camp At Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinod Kumar Pandey, Mr. Rohan Shukla, Advocates. For Respondent(s) / CBI : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocates. MCRC No. 5589 of 2025 Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal S/o Sh. Kanhaiyalal Agrawal, Aged About 58 Years R/o Jhajharia Mansion, Ward No. 34, Jagmal Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Through (Pairokar) Saransh Agrawal S/o Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Jhajharia Mansion, Ward No. 34, Jagmal Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) Versus Central Bureau Investigation Through S.P CBI, AC-II, New Delhi, Camp At Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Dr. Kislay Pandey, Azad Kohker, Sanjeev Pandey, Sumit Jha, Tejas, Advocates. For Respondent(s) / CBI : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocates. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 0 8/08/2025 1. Since both the above bail applications arise out of common crime number involving same offence, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicant-Manoj Pathak has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) as he has been arrested on 25.04.2025 in connection with Crime No. RC2172025A0010, registered at Police Station CBI/AC- II, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS). 3. So far as applicant-Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal is concerned, this is the second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS before this Court with respect to the above crime number, as his first bail application being M.Cr.C. No. 4273/2025 was dismissed by this Court, as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh bail application, after filing of the charge sheet by the respondent/CBI. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of reliable information received by the respondent, it was revealed that M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., which is engaged in the business of construction, has committed an offence in connivance with other co-accused persons. The prosecution states that between 01.01.2018 and 25.04.2025, South East Central Railway (for short, the SECR) awarded 44 work contracts to M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. The further case of the prosecution is that co- accused Vishal Anand was actively involved in tender bearing No. Engg- 3 CTE-BSP-08-2024-25. After completion of the tender process, the work order was issued in favor of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. for execution of Safety fencing with gate and pedestrian subway from KM 618.000 to KM 722.000 of the BSP-JSG Section of Bilaspur Division. The work awarded to the Company could not be executed due to lack of cable clearance from the S&T Department. In order to facilitate or expedite the requisite clearance, co-accused Sushil Jhajharia, who was the Managing Director of the Company, allegedly approached the co-accused Vishal Anand, Chief Engineer/RSW, SECR, to seek his influence and intervention in expediting the clearance process from the S&T Department. The prosecution story further states that subsequently there was a meeting between co-accused Vishal Anand and Sushil Jhajharia, where it was mutually agreed that a bribe amount would be paid to Mr. Vishal Anand in exchange for facilitating the pending clearance of the fencing work. In pursuance of this meeting, the applicant-Manoj Pathak, who is a low- salaried employee in the company, was instructed to transfer the agreed amount from Bilaspur to Ranchi. The respondent laid a trap and on 25.04.2025, the applicant-Manoj Pathak was arrested while delivering the agreed amount to co-accused Kunal Anand. Manoj Pathak is being made accused on the basis that he acted as a courier to transfer the agreed amount from one place to another. On the basis of said allegation the offence under section 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 61(2) of BNS was registered against him and other co- accused persons vide FIR No. RC2172025A0010 on 25.04.2025. On the basis of the FIR the investigation was carried out by the respondent and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed before the competent court. 5. Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant- 4 Manoj Pathak submits that a bare perusal of the charge sheet would show that no offence has been committed by the Manoj Pathak and the his role was merely that of a courier boy acting under the instructions of his employer, without any personal knowledge of or involvement in the alleged conspiracy. He is a low salary paid employee working as Senior Executive (Operation & Admin.) in the Company. The respondent has completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet before the competent Court. Significantly, point 16.64 of the charge sheet clearly mentions that further investigations are to be carried out against other co-accused and unknown others, but remains conspicuously silent regarding Manoj Pathak, which conclusively proves that investigation against him also is complete and as such, the possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence is minimal. No substantive offence has been committed by Manoj Pathak and he was never the party of any conspiracy as he was neither aware about any alleged meeting between the co-accused nor having knowledge about any purported impediments in project execution. The prosecution has utterly failed to demonstrate any criminal knowledge on the part of the applicant, who merely travels to different project sites as part of his routine employment duties. Being a mere employee, he could never been privy to any high-level discussions or decisions allegedly made by others as he was simply simply discharging his normal employment responsibilities by traveling to Ranchi for submission of tender related documents, where his employer had ongoing projects. To hold the applicant criminally liable in such circumstances would contravene the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, which require individual culpability to be established beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Mr. Otwani further submits that even if the whole prosecution story is 5 assumed to be true and taken at its face value, then also no offence has been committed by the applicant-Manoj Pathak. The entire case of the prosecution moves around that it is a trap case where both the accused persons were found handing over and receiving of gratification amount. The bare perusal of charge sheet itself demonstrates that Manoj Pathak was intercepted at a distant place and not from the place where the co- accused was present. The main allegation levelled against the Company is that the bribe amount was paid for facilitating S&T clearance. In Railways, different wings function independently under the control of the General Manager of a particular Zone. The Head of one Department has no fiduciary control over other wings. This organizational reality makes the prosecution's narrative inherently improbable, as the co-accused Vishal Anand had no authority over the S&T Department whose clearance was allegedly being sought. The respondent-CBI relies primarily on documentary evidence which is already in their possession, and there is no risk of evidence tampering at this stage. A bare perusal of the FIR would show that the initial allegation against the Company was that it regularly pays gratification to public servants to influence work orders and expedite bill clearances. However, after completing the investigation, the charge sheet completely changes this narrative, now alleging that the bribe was paid to obtain S&T clearance. This fundamental shift in the prosecution's theory demonstrates the conjectural nature of the entire case. Furthermore, documentary evidence confirms that the tender was awarded to M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. through a legitimate reverse auction process explicitly provided for in the NIT terms and conditions. This transparent bidding process, in which three technically qualified bidders participated, followed all procedural requirements and negates any suggestion of corrupt influence. The law 6 on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to motive of demand of the amount as illegal gratification. M/s. Jhajharia Nirman Limited was declared the lowest bidder (L1) in an open, competitive, and fully digitized bidding process conducted through the Indian Railway’s E Procurement Portal (IREPS). The bid evaluation underwent technical scrutiny, financial ranking, and a reverse auction. ultimately leading to the Jhajharia Nirman Limited's offering the most economical rates - 8.11% below the advertised value when compared to contemporaneous tenders floated for adjacent sections. This procurement model, grounded in algorithmic fairness and audit-verifiable metrics, leaves no room for discretionary interference The Jhajharia Nirman Ltd’s success was purely merit-based and a direct outcome of his Company's superior competitiveness, not favoritism or illicit influence. Most importantly, the allegation of corrupt intent collapses upon examination of the public servant allegedly involved. The said officer Shri Vishal Anand-was serving as Chief Engineer/RSW (Senior Administrative Grade) and functioned only as a Technical Member of a three-member Tender Committee. As per the Indian Railways Model Schedule of Powers (2018), tenders of the scale involved (Rs. 183.44 crores) could only be finally accepted by officers of the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) specifically the Principal Chief Engineer (PCE), who functioned as the Tender Accepting Authority (TAA), Shri Vishal Anand had no power, 7 individually or collectively, to award or block the contract His signature on the Letter of Acceptance was a procedural formality mandated by office protocol, not a manifestation of authority. To implicate the Applicant in a bribery charge, allegedly for "influencing" such an officer, when that officer had no power to confer any advantage, is both legally untenable and factually hollow. 7. It is next submitted by Mr. Otwani that the case fails to meet even the basic threshold of a prosecutable offence. Despite extensive investigation, there is absolutely no evidence direct or circumstantial that any illegal gratification was ever offered or authorized by anyone. No demand has been recorded, and no marked currency was recovered in any "trap" operation as is standard procedure in genuine bribery cases. In legitimate trap cases, the investigating agency meticulously marks currency notes, applies detection powder, and conducts immediate hand-wash tests none of which were apparently done in this case. The prosecution's entire theory rests on the mere presence of the applicant in Ranchi, where he had legitimate business on behalf of his employer. The complete absence of audio, video recordings, or electronic surveillance that would typically be deployed in a planned trap operation further exposes the hollowness of the prosecution's case. Mere attribution of intention, in the absence of demonstrable conduct, is insufficient to justify incarceration. In the present case, the failure to meet even this preliminary standard makes the applicant's continued custody not only unjust but constitutionally impermissible Moreover, there is a complete absence of any incriminating material that would establish a connection between the applicant-Manoj Pathak and any alleged instructions from Sushil Jhajharia. The charge sheet fails to demonstrate through any credible evidence how alleged instructions were communicated from one 8 to the other rendering the entire conspiracy theory speculative and conjectural. The investigation was further tainted by gross violations of the CBI (Crime) Manual 2020, particularly with regard to the handling of Source Information Reports (SIR). The agency proceeded to conduct an unauthorized preliminary verification without registering any FIR or Preliminary Enquiry as mandated, failed to obtain requisite approvals from the competent authority, unlawfully requisitioned documents in breach of procedural safeguards, and neglected the timelines and secrecy provisions expressly provided under the Manual all in stark contravention of the CBI's own binding norms. The prosecution's entire trap case stands vitiated in view of its failure to verify or substantiate any demand of illegal gratification. The requirement of proving demand is a settled legal precondition for offences under the PC Act. The seizure memo and panchnama prepared by the CBI unequivocally show that the applicant was apprehended at a location distinct from the scene of the alleged crime, belying the claim that he was caught "red-handed" in the act of bribery. If the applicant was not present at, or immediately near, the supposed site of the illicit transaction when the arrest took place, then the very characterization of him being caught in flagrante delicto (in the act) is factually baseless. This glaring discrepancy between the prosecution's assertions and its own official documentation calls into question the veracity of the allegations. Such a self-contradiction suggests that the case against the applicant is not as straightforward as claimed, and it undermines the prosecution's attempt to portray the applicant as a person apprehended in the very act of wrongdoing. Equally disconcerting is a financial inconsistency at the heart of the prosecution's story, which casts doubt on the foundational claim of the alleged bribe. The CBI has maintained that it was tracking a sum of Rs. 9 32,00,000/- as the tainted money in this operation; however, the amount actually recovered during the raid was only Rs. 31,93,500/- This leaves an unaccounted shortfall, for which the prosecution has offered no explanation whatsoever. Such a discrepancy is not a trivial accounting error but a material gap that goes to the root of the case. If the investigative agency's core premise was to follow the money, the absence of remaining money from the expected sum raises a serious question as to whether the evidence has been fully and accurately disclosed or collected. The lack of any cogent explanation for the missing amount inexorably erodes confidence in the integrity of the prosecution's evidence. This unexplained shortfall undermines the prosecution's theory about the bribe itself and, in turn, strengthens the case for granting bail, since it indicates that the evidence against the applicant may be unreliable or incomplete. 8. It is lastly submitted by Mr. Otwani that the applicant satisfies all three criteria of the "triple test for bail as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. (i) there is no flight risk as the applicant has deep roots in society with a permanent residence and stable employment in Bilaspur, (ii) there is no possibility of evidence tampering as all relevant documents are already in CBI's possession; and (iii) there is no likelihood of the applicant influencing witnesses, as there is not a single instance of such behavior. The offences alleged against the applicant under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of the PC Act, and Section 61(2) of BNS carry a maximum punishment of imprisonment up to 7 years.The alleged offence does not involve violence, and the applicant has no criminal antecedents, making his continued detention unjustified. Section 5(4) of PC Act explicitly states that Sections 326 and 475 of the Cr.P.C apply to the proceedings before a Special Judge. This means that provisions related to recording 10 evidence, judgments, and appeals, as applicable to magistrates in warrant cases, are relevant in the context of a Special Judge's trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 9. The case of the prosecution so far it relates to the applicant-Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal {M.Cr.C. No. 5589/2025} is that on 21.04.2025, the applicant informed his son namely Vinap Jhajharia that he would be meeting co-accused Vishal Anand (Chief Engineer/RSW at SECR, Bilaspur) to ensure likely benefits for his Company in lieu of bribing accused Vishal Anand. Thereafter, he met co-accused Vishal Anand to discuss the alleged resolution of matters and to finalize the quantum of undue advantage to be provided in this regard. The further allegation against the applicant-Sushil Jhajharia is that he has instructed his employee Manoj Pathak {applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 5456/2025} to deliver a sum of Rs. 32 lacs(approx.) at Ranchi, Jharkhand to the relative of co-accused Vishal Anand and a trap was laid by the CBI/Respondent in which Manoj Pathak was caught red handed with a sum of Rs. 32 Lacs (approx) while bribing accused Vishal Anand. 10. Dr. Kislay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant-Sushil Jhajharia, in addition to what has been argued by Mr. Otwani, submits that the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate that the alleged bribe is chronologically and logically implausible, as the contract in question was awarded on 19.11.2024 i.e. five months prior to the alleged incident. The Company of the applicant had already invested approximately Rs. 15 crores in project execution, and no bills had been raised or payments made as on the date of the alleged offense, eliminating any possibility of quid pro quo. It has been overlooked by the learned Special Judge while rejecting the bail application that the limited role of co-accused Shri Vishal Anand, who, as a Chief Engineer/RSW, 11 functioned merely as a technical member and Convenor of the Tender Committee and was not the Tender Accepting Authority. His role was non-discretionary and lacked authority to confer any benefit or expedite any clearance. The allegation of bribery for S&T clearance is wholly untenable, as the S&T Department operates independently, with its own PHOD, and the clearance process is governed by Railway JPOs. Co- accused Vishal Anand had no jurisdiction or role in the said clearance or even in execution of the project making the allegation baseless. There is complete absence of any proof with regard to demand or recovery from the applicant. No communication, instruction, or money trail links the applicant to the alleged bribe, and the recovery from a third-party employee, without any proven demand, cannot sustain a corruption charge in law. Further, the entire investigation stands vitiated due to the absence of prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988. The charge-sheet itself admits that prosecution sanction under Section 19 is still awaited, rendering it incomplete and legally incapable of attracting cognizance. There is serious illegality of telephonic interception conducted without lawful authorization under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, violating the applicant's right to privacy and rendering the evidence inadmissible. There is gross violations of the CBI Manual, 2020, including lack of proper verification of source information, unauthorized evidence gathering, and breach of procedural safeguards. These cumulatively amount to an abuse of process. The applicant is having serious and verified medical condition, including diabetic kidney disease, which necessitates specialized medical care not available in jail, thereby violating the applicant's right to life and health under Article 21. The charge-sheet filed against the applicant by the Respondent/CBI is, in fact, a document generated with Artificial Intelligence (AI), as 12 confirmed by an independent third-party analysis. The certificate (Annexure A/7) categorically affirms that the charge sheet is drafted using artificial intelligence software, reflecting a glaring absence of lawful application of mind in the formulation of serious criminal allegations. This egregious reliance on mechanical content-generation tools in a matter involving the liberty of a citizen is not merely superficial it strikes at the very root of prosecutorial credibility. It demonstrates an alarming abdication of investigative responsibility and renders the document legally and procedurally suspect. The use of an Al-Generated text in lieu of a genuine, reasoned, and evidence-backed prosecutorial brief is a grave impropriety that fatally undermines the legitimacy of the investigation. 11. Mr. Pandey next submits that in such a scenario, where the charges against the applicant are the product of automated inference rather than informed human inquiry, continued incarceration becomes wholly indefensible and violative of the fundamental tenets of fairness, due process, and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The applicant has demonstrated good faith and respect for the legal process, and there is no allegation that he has attempted to interfere with evidence or influence witnesses since the charge-sheet was filed. All material evidence, including documents, electronic records, and the seized money, are already in the custody of Respondent/CBI The applicant maintains that he has deep roots in society, being a long-standing businessman with family, a fixed abode, and assets in India, thus not posing a flight risk. He has expressed readiness to comply with any stringent conditions imposed by the Court, such as the surrender of his passport or regular check-ins, to alleviate any apprehensions. Therefore, releasing him on bail would enable him to 13 diligently prepare his defense and receive proper medical care, aligning with the principles of fairness and personal liberty. The charge-sheet filed by the respondent/CBI is legally defective due to the absence of mandatory sanction, as provided under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act for prosecuting co-accused Vishal Anand, a public servant. The absence of this crucial sanction renders the charge-sheet a piecemeal and legally inconclusive document, as the learned trial Court is barred from taking cognizance of the main offences against the public servant. This procedural lapse directly prejudices the applicant (a private individual), as the case cannot proceed to trial without this foundational step, potentially leading to indefinite incarceration without trial. The charge- sheet was filed just prior to the lapse of the statutory 60-day period to block the applicant's right to default bail under Section 187(3) of the BNSS. This reveals a calculated strategy aimed at defeating statutory safeguards. The entire investigation is vitiated as no proper Source Information Report (SIR) was initially registered or verified, nor was competent approval obtained prior to converting unverifiable source material into a FIR. The CBI (Crime) Manual, 2020 explicitly mandates that no inquiry or action on source information shall commence until the competent authority has sanctioned its registration and an SIR number is assigned. This indispensable step was bypassed, stripping the investigation of any lawful foundation. Furthermore, the Manual requires impartial verification of SIRs by an officer other than the one who submitted it, which was not done. The Manual also strictly forbids requisitioning records or collecting evidence during the secret verification stage without prior authorization, a safeguard that was brazenly violated. The requirement that an SIR be classified as "SECRET" was disregarded, and strict timelines for SIR verification were not adhered to. 14 Such blatant and cumulative non-compliance with the CBI's own binding norms, renders the initiation of proceedings without jurisdiction and an abuse of process. The interception of the applicant's telephone calls was carried out without lawful authorization, in direct violation of Section 20(2) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. This Act mandates call tapping only after the approval of the Central or State Government, and only in cases of public emergency or in the interest of public safety. The prosecution has, till date, not disclosed the date of initiation, the chain of authorization orders, committee approvals obtained, despite the charge- sheet ambiguously claiming "legal interception after prior and due permission from competent authority". Furthermore, the absence of a Review Committee, as explicitly mandated by Section 20(2) read with Rules 3 and 5 of the Telecommunications Rules, makes the entire interception illegal, thereby tainting the entire investigation. Evidence procured through such illegal intercepts is liable to be disregarded as "fruit of the poisonous tree," reflecting the arbitrary manner in which the investigation was conducted and offending the fundamental right to privacy. 12. It is further submitted that the contract in question, Tender No. ENGG- CTE-BSP-08-2024-25, pertained to a civil-rail infrastructure work involving safety fencing and pedestrian subway development in the Bilaspur Division. The applicant's company, M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., a reputed infrastructure developer emerged as the L1 bidder through a fully transparent, digitized process on IREPS, after significantly reducing its bid in the Reverse Auction, resulting in the highest savings to the Railways among concurrent tenders. The process adhered strictly to Indian Railways procurement protocols, with full audit trails, and the final approval authority, as per MSOP 2018, rested with the Principal Chief 15 Engineer (PCE). The CBI's allegation that the non-existent motive for the bribe was to expedite Signal & Telecommunication (S&T) clearance is structurally and procedurally implausible. The S&T clearance process follows a structured procedure governed by established Joint Procedure Orders (JPOs) and Telecom Circular No. 17/2013. Initial permission for digging work near S&T cables is granted by the Sr. DSTE/DSTE or Sr. DEE/DEE, not the Chief Engineer/RSW. This clearance is a mandatory and automatic contractual obligation of the Railways, required in all railway tenders involving earthwork. It is a continuous, routine process, not a one-time approval that could justify a bribe, and it is the Railway's responsibility to provide it. If not provided, the Railways would face delays, cost increases and moreover, the contractor will be compensated for these delays in way of Delay damages, Time extensions and price variations. The Railway’s Executing Officer responsible for obtaining S&T clearances is the Senior Divisional Engineer (Sr. DEN), not the CE/RSW (Vishal Anand). Therefore, bribing Vishal Anand for S&T clearance is illogical and contrary to established railway procedures. Hence, the allegation alleged by the Respondent/CBI is not only factually incorrect but is also belied by the contemporaneous official record. The respondent/CBI has failed to establish any demand for illegal gratification in this case, rendering the bribery allegation baseless. The charge sheet is utterly bereft of any material evidence of a bribe demand, despite extensive investigation through call interceptions, phone seizures, and document searches, not a single conversation or document indicates that any bribe was ever sought. In fact, the theory of the prosecution has shifted markedly over time, which further undercuts its credibility The FIR initially insinuated that the Company of the applicant was being awarded lucrative contracts 16 with expeditious bill payments as quid pro quo, however, when no evidence emerged to support this, the charge sheet altered the motive to an alleged attempt to gain undue favor for an internal S&T clearance. This material alteration of the allegation clearly indicates that the original accusation was unfounded, and the investigating agency has adjusted its theory merely to shore up a case that was failing from the outset. In the absence of any proof of demand or consistent motive, the prosecution's case is fundamentally weak and unsustainable in law. The relevant contract itself provided robust safeguards that negate any possible motive for bribery. Notably, Clause 17A(iii) of the General Conditions of Contract explicitly assures the contractor that any delay or failure on the Railway's part (such as delays in land handover, instructions, drawings, or other approvals) will not vitiate the contract but will entitle the contractor to reasonable extensions of time. Likewise, Clause 64(1) empowers the contractor to seek arbitration for any losses arising from delayed clearances. These provisions mean that even if there were bureaucratic delays, the company of the Petitioner had adequate legal remedies and would suffer no irreparable prejudice eliminating any incentive to resort to illegal gratification. In sum, given that Applicant was never in a position to grant unwarranted favors and the contract protected the petitioner's interests against delays, the very premise of a bribe motive is entirely negated. 13. Dr. Pandey lastly submits that no demand has been recorded, nor has any marked currency or electronic trail directly linked the applicant to any act of inducement or conspiracy. The applicant, aged 58, suffers from chronic kidney disease, severe Type II Diabetes, urosepsis, Diplopia and systemic infections. He has undergone chest wall surgery and continues to suffer post-COVID complications, including respiratory distress. 17 14. On the other hand, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar alongwith Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI submits that the instant case RC2172025A0010 was registered in CBI, AC-II Branch, New Delhi on 25.04.2025 for the offences under Sections 61(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of P.C. Act 1988 (as amended in 2018) against (i) Shri Vishal Anand (IRSE:2000), presently Chief Engineer / RSW / SECR /Bilaspur, (ii) Sh. Sushil Jhajharia (alias Sushil Kumar Agarwal), Managing Director in M/s. Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., (iii) Sh. Saransh Jhajharia, Director in M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., (iv) Shri Vinap Jhajharia, Director in M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd, (v) Sh Manoj Pathak, employee in M/s, Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., (vi) Shri Anand Kumar Jha (father of Vishal Anand) (vii) Sh. Kunal Anand (brother of Sh. Vishal Anand) (viii) M/s. Jhajharia Nirman Ltd., and (ix) Unknown Others, on the basis of source information. The allegation in brief is that official(s) of SECR were indulging in corrupt and illegal activities in connivance with applicant - Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agarwal, his sons Saransh Jhajharia and Vinap Jhajharia, all are representatives/Directors of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. Bilaspur, which is a major construction Company operating from Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. The Company regularly gives undue advantage/illegal gratification to officials of SECR for exerting substantial influence over them. In return, the Company is awarded lucrative Railway Construction contracts, and the bills put up by the Company are sanctioned expeditiously. M/s. Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. is executing various work orders for SECR, Bilaspur, including construction of minor and major bridges, Railway Over Bridges (ROBs), Railway Under Bridges (RUBs), capacity enhancement work, track lining work, etc. On 21.04.2025, applicant-Sushil Jhajharia informed his son Vinap Jhajharia about his meeting with accused public servant Vishal Anand 18 who is presently posted as the Chief Engineer/RSW at SECR, Bilaspur to ensure likely benefits for the Company by virtue of Vishal Anand's official position in lieu of bribing him. On 21.04.2025, Sushil Jhajharia met with Vishal Anand, Chief Engineer to discuss about pending matters and to finalize the quantum of undue advantage to be provided in this regard. It is further alleged that on 21.04.2025, Sushil Jhajharia, after detailed discussions with co accused Vishal Anand regarding clearance of pending matters in lieu of undue advantage, instructed his employee i.e. Manoj Pathak to deliver a sum of Rs 32 lacs (approx.) at Ranchi, Jharkhand to relative of Vishal Anand at Ranchi, Jharkhand. Further, Vishal Anand also informed his brother, Kunal Anand that Manoj Pathak would be coming to Ranchi by bus to deliver the bribe amount on 25.04.2025. Additionally, Manoj Pathak later informed Anand Kumar Jha, father of Shri Vishal Anand that he would be arriving in Ranchi at around 11:30 hours on 25.04.2025 and would deliver the bribe amount by 12:00 hours at Ranchi. Kunal Anand, brother of Vishal Anand would also accompany Anand Kumar Jha, father of Vishal Anand to collect the bribe amount. 15. Mr. Gopa Kumar submits that the charge-sheet bearing No. 05/2025 dated 20.06 2025 has been filed before the learned trial Court on 23.06.2025, for the offences under Sections 61(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of PC Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018) and substantive offences thereof, against Vishal Anand (A-1), Sushil Jhajharia @Suhsil Kumar Agrawal (A-2), Manoj Pathak (A-3), Anand Kumar Jha (A-4), Kunal Anand (A-5) and M/s Jhajharia Niraman Limited (A-6). 16. It is next submitted by Mr. Gopa Kumar that the respondent/CBI, AC-II, New Delhi laid a successful trap in the presence of independent 19 witnesses at Ranchi and apprehended Manoj Pathak (the person who delivered the bribe money), an employee of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. and Kunal Anand (the person who collected the bribe money), brother of accused public servant Vishal Anand immediately after the exchange/transaction of bribe amount Rs. 31,93,500/- at Birsa Chowk, Ranchi. The bribe amount of Rs 31,93,500/- has been recovered from the possession of Kunal Anand after the delivery of the bribe amount to him by Shri Manoj Pathak. This bribe was delivered by Shri Manoj Pathak on the instruction of Shri Sushil Jhajharia. Manoj Pathak disclosed in presence of independent witnesses that 4 sealed packets containing the cash money (approx. Rs. 32 lakhs) were collected by him from the wife of accused applicant Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agarwal, Director of M/s Jhanjharia Nirman Ltd. on 24.04.2025 on the direction of the accused Sushil Agrawal from his residence i.e. Jhajaria Mansion at Jagmal Chowk, Bilaspur. He also revealed that accused Sushil Agrawal has directed him to hand over the above cash money to Anand Kumar Jha at Ranchi. He also revealed that Sushil Jhajharia has provided mobile number of Anand Kumar Jha (father of accused public servant). The mobile number was found in the mobile phone of Shri Manoj Pathak, who was apprehended by CBI on the spot. The co- accused Kunal Anand and Anand Kumar Jha disclosed in presence of the independent witnesses to have collected bribe amount Rs 32 lakhs (approx) from Manoj Pathak. The afore-mentioned bribe amount was found in the vehicle of co-accused Kunal Anand in three sweet boxes (Making your Sweetest Dreams come true) in sealed condition (laminated with Cello tape) and a separate bundle of white colour. On enquiring about the said sealed parcels, co-accused Anand Kumar Jha revealed that these parcels having cash money were delivered by Manoj 20 Pathak on the directions of his elder son Vishal Anand (accused public servant). The applicant-Sushil Jhajhariya was arrested on 25.04.2025 from Dibrugarh Airport, Assam and is currently under Judicial Custody at Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 17. Mr. Gopa Kumar strongly opposes the bail applications and submits that the bail applications of the accused applicants are liable to be rejected in-limine on the ground that the case was registered on 25.05.2025 and applicant, Manoj Pathak, an employee of M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. was arrested on 25.05.2025 immediately after exchange of bribe amount of Rs 31,93,500/- who was following the directions of his boss applicant- Sushil Jhajharia, and delivered the afore-mentioned illegal gratification on the direction of Sushil Jhajharia. This case is kept open for further investigation. The larger conspiracy hatched by accused persons, is required to be unearthed. There are serious allegations against accused applicants as they have been found involved in corruption. Applicant Manoj Pathak, after his apprehension, revealed in the presence of independent witnesses that applicant Sushil Agarwal directed him to deliver the bribe amount to Anand Kumar Jha at Ranchi. If the accused applicants are granted bail, there is every possibility that he may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. The aforesaid act on the part of accused applicant does not warrant any kind of leniency. The recorded telephonic conversations and other relevant evidence collected so far, prima facie indicates the hatching of criminal conspiracy among the accused persons and commission of offence of corruption for seeking favor from the co-accused public servant. The applicant Manoj Pathak, was apprehended by the CBI team immediately after delivery of bribe money of Rs. 31,93,500/- to the co-accused Kunal Anand and Anand Kumar Jha on 25.05.2025 and the same money was recovered 21 during investigation by CBI. An additional amount of cash Rs. 18,50,000/- was recovered from the residential premises of the co- accused public servant Vishal Anand and an amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs and jewellery having cost of approx. Rs. 2 Crore were recovered from the residential/ shop premise of the other co-accused Shri Kunal Anand. It is suspected that the money which was seized from the premises of Vishal Anand and Kunal Anand might be the ill-gotten money delivered by accused Sushil Jhajharia for obtaining favours in the award of Railway contracts or for clearing of his bills etc. and this bribe money may be delivered by Manoj Pathak on the direction of his employer Sushil Jhajharia. The source of the remaining amount needs to be ascertained during the investigation of the case. The applicants are highly influential and there is every possibility of tampering with evidences or influencing the witnesses of the case as investigation qua previous instances of bribe delivered by the accused applicant to the co accused and other public servant is still pending. The present bail applications are liable to be rejected on the ground that the averments made in the instant bail applications are misleading, baseless and devoid of merits as there are clinching evidences against the applicants accused to establish the allegations against them. In view of the accusation, seriousness of the offence and gravity of the offences, the applicants do not deserve any sympathetic view from this Hon'ble Court The material in hand is sufficient to establish the role played by the accused applicants in the entire conspiracy. 18. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and materials available on record. 19. Basically, the allegation against the applicant-Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal is that he has offered illegal gratification to the tune of 22 Rs. 32 Lacs approx. to one of the co-accused who is a government servant in order to secure work contracts and clearance of bills and for this purpose, he has taken the services of his employee, namely, Manoj Pathak. 20. The applicant-Manoj Pathak was apprehended immediately after he handed over the cash amounting to Rs. 31,93,500/- to the co-accused namely Kunal Anand and Anand Kumar Jha on 25.05.2025 and the said money has been duly recovered during the investigation. On the one hand, it is being contended that the money does not belong to the applicants but either of the applicants are not in a position to explain as to why such a huge amount was handed over to the family members of the official of the SECR. The statement of independent witnesses, surveillance records, telephonic conversations and the actual recovery of Rs. 31,93,500/- clearly establishes the active role of the applicants in the delivery of illegal gratification. The conversation record between the applicants, wherein the applicant-Manoj Pathak has informed the applicant-Sushil Jhajharia that he has handed over the money, prima facie establishes that there does exist a money trail. 21. The present appears to be a case of organized crime as the applicant- Sushil Jhajharia’s Company i.e. M/s Jhajharia Nirman Ltd. has been awarded 44 works contract in between 01.01.2018 and 25.04.2025 by the SECR. The telephonic conversations (annexed as Annexure R/5 in both the bail applications) by the respondent/CBI prima facie establishes that there does exist a link which connects the applicants with the offence in question. Further, there is no explanation with the bribe amount of Rs.31,93,500/- which has been recovered by the respondent/CBI from the possession of Kunal Anand after the delivery by the applicant-Manoj Pathak on the directions of applicant-Sushil 23 Jhajharia. The submission with regard to non-grant of prosecution sanction in respect of the co-accused government employee, namely Vishal Anand is concerned, the applicants cannot take shelter of any procedural flaw which even otherwise is not applicable on them. 22. The present is a case which involves economic offence which is considered to be more serious than conventional crimes as they affect the entire economy and pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country while shaking public confidence in the financial system. Such crimes committed during the course of economic or business activities cause financial harm and adversely impact the country's economic well- being and financial health. These offences typically involve fraudulent activities that affect both public and private financial interests. 23. It is well settled that while granting bail, the Court has to consider three factors viz. flight risk or likelihood of fleeing justice, likelihood of tampering with the evidence and likelihood of influencing the witness. In the present case, since there is a connivance between a private Company and the officials of the SECR, it cannot be ruled out that the applicants would not try to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. Economic offences constitute a different class and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and is considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 24. In State of Gujarat v. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal {(1987) 2 SCC 364}, the Apex Court observed as under: "The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought 24 to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.…” 25. Further, in State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai v. Balakrishnan Dattatreya Kumbhar {(2012) 12 SCC 384}, it has been observed by the Apex Court that corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes. 26. In Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, {(2013) 7 SCC 466}, it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white collar crimes which has affected the fiber of the country’s economic structure and the economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. It was further observed as under: “27. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, 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 25 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.” 27. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicants and the fact that in the present case though charge sheet has been filed in respect of the applicants, however, the respondent/CBI is still investigating the source of remaining amount and involvement of other persons is still to be unearthed, the documents appended with the bail petition especially the telephonic conversation between the applicants themselves prima facie discloses their involvement and other co-accused persons and it also prima facie transpires that the applicants are indulged in providing undue advantage in terms of cash to the officials of the SECR in consideration of securing work contracts and clearing bills etc. and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as also the possibility that the close nexus between applicants and SECR officials makes it probable that they could influence the witnesses or destroy evidence, if released on bail, the bail applications of the applicants – Manoj Pathak and Sushil Jhajharia @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal, involved in Crime No. RC2172025A0010, registered at Police Station, CBI-AC-II/New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 , are rejected at this stage. 28. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.11 20:22:56 +0530