HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: Bail App No. 145/2025 Reserved on: 30.06.2025 Pronounced on: 08.07.2025 Sumeet Khajuria ….Applicant Through :- Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parimoksh Seth, Advocate Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anany Gupta, Advocate V/s Union of India th. CBI ….Respondent Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. Applicant, being aggrieved of order dated 03.05.2025, passed by learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, CBI Cases, Jammu [“the trial Court], vide which, his application for bail came to be dismissed, has approached this Court for emancipation through his wife. 2. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the application, it shall be apt to have an overview of the background facts. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that CBI received a source information that applicant, who happens to be Chief Engineer of Konkon Railway Corporation Ltd. (KRCL), Project Division, Jammu, in connivance with co-accused Rajesh Kumar Jain, Pushap Raj Singh and Sulabh Omprakash Rawat, Directors of M/s Paras Railtech Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi [“the Company”] and some unknown public servants and private persons had indulged in corrupt activities, in lieu of favouring the Sr. No. 2 Bail App No. 145/2025 Company in clearing its pending bills and revising the estimates related to removal of tunnel Muck in execution of work related to Katra-Dharam Section of Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla Rail Link (USBRL). 3.1. It surfaced that on 30.01.2025, co-accused Rakesh Kumar Jain informed the applicant that representatives of the company had submitted a bill in his office, but his subordinate officer had made some adverse remarks and urged the applicant for favourable intervention. The applicant, it is alleged, assured the co-accused to fulfil his commitments and do the needful in favour of the company, but asked him to meet him in person at his camp office at Jammu. 3.2. An intercepted call between the said co-accused Rajesh Kumar Jain and one Sulabh Omprakash Rawat revealed that co-accused had informed Sulabh Rawat that he had made a commitment to the applicant to pay a total of Rs.50.00 lacs as bribe, for smooth approval/payment of Non-Scheduled items related to Package-I and Package-II, out of which, Rs. 40.00 lacs was already delivered to the applicant, during his previous visits at Jammu and in return, applicant had ensured favourable rate for the Non-Scheduled items, otherwise, company could have faced a loss of Rs.2.00 crores. 3.3. On the receipt of aforesaid information, a trap came to be laid. The co-accused Rajesh Kumar Jain, as per the commitment, met the applicant at his residence; House No. 541, Sector-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu on 08.02.2025, for delivering illegal gratification of amount of Rs.10.00 lacs (approx.). 3.4. The respondent Agency, in order to verify the information and to apprehend the bribe giver and bribe taker, assembled at Jammu at about 3 Bail App No. 145/2025 16:45 hours. The trap team members and independent witnesses were informed that co-accused Rajesh Kumar Jain will deliver the bribe amount to the applicant and it was decided to apprehend both the accused persons at the time of deliverance and acceptance at the residential premises of the applicant. Accordingly, the team members and independent witnesses took their suitable positions in a clandestine manner near the residential house of the applicant. At about 17:55 hours, they noticed that a Mahindra Bolero car No. JK14-H 5048 (white Coloured) Model No. N-4 stopped in front of the house of the applicant. Applicant came down from the first floor, opened the main gate of his house and took the co accused Rajesh Kumar Jain with him to the first floor. After around 20 to 25 minutes, the said co accused came down and went into his car and sat at the rear seat. However, it was observed that the carry bag (coloured white with orange lining) which the co accused had taken with him inside the house of the applicant was not with him. The CBI team members and independent witnesses swung into action and intercepted the car. 3.5. As per the investigating Agency, co-accused Rajesh Kumar Jain, on sustained interrogation, revealed in the presence of independent witnesses that he had delivered the bribe to the applicant at his residential premises in the said white and orange carry bag, which contained the bribe amount and sweets packet. On this, the co accused was taken to the house of the applicant by the CBI team members and independent witnesses and when challenged, applicant initially denied having received the bribe from co-accused, but his face turned pale. It is alleged that after sustained interrogation, the applicant disclosed to have 4 Bail App No. 145/2025 received the bribe amount and led the CBI team to a bed room at the first floor of his house, where from the bribe money kept in a white and orange coloured carry bag came to be recovered from a table of the bed room. The co-accused in the presence of independent witnesses identified the recovered carry bag and GC notes, which he had delivered to the applicant. The bribe amount along with carry bag came to be seized and sealed. The bribe amount was counted by independent witnesses and it was found amounting to Rs.9,42,500/- in the shape of 1885 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500 each. Mobile phones of the applicant and co accused were also seized. 3.6. The investigation revealed that during the trap proceedings and search of the house of the applicant in the presence of independent witnesses, an amount of Rs.73.11 lacs also came to be recovered from his master bed room, which was kept in different packets. On being enquired, it was disclosed by the applicant that said amount was paid to him by different Contractors, who were executing work in the KRCL (USBRL) Project. Applicant also disclosed the names of said Contractors as Sh. Vikash Vaidya of M/s SRM Pvt. Ltd. J&K, Sh. B. P. Reddy of M/s VCCL, Jammu, Sh. Airuddha of M/s R. K. Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain. 3.7. It also surfaced during investigation that co accused Rajesh Kumar Jain had already delivered a cash amount of Rs.40.00 lacs as bribe to the applicant, out of Rs.50.00 lacs, agreed to be paid for smooth clearance of bills of the Company. Accordingly, the applicant came to be arrested on 08.02.2025. 5 Bail App No. 145/2025 4. The investigation culminated in the final report against the applicant and others for the alleged commission of offences, under Section 61(2) of BNS and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [„the P.C. Act”]. 5. An application preferred by the applicant at the investigation stage before the trial Court did not find favour and came to be rejected on 25.02.2025, primarily on the ground that investigation was at the stage of infancy. Aggrieved of the said order, he approached this court, but his application came to be dismissed by this court also, vide order dated 25.03.2025 on the same ground, subject, however, to the liberty to approach the trial court after filing of the charge sheet. 5.1. The final report in the case came to be presented on 07.04.2025 before the trial court. The applicant again filed application for bail, which came to be dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 03.05.2025 inter alia on the grounds that there is a prima facie case established against him, accusation against him is serious in nature, the applicant being a Chief Engineer, the apprehension on his part to influence the prosecution witnesses could not be ruled out and that a lenient view in his favour would give a wrong signal to the society. 6. Aggrieved of the said order dated 03.05.2025, vide which, his application, after presentation of charge sheet came to be rejected by the trial court, the applicant has approached this court inter alia on the grounds that even if a prima facie case is established, accused cannot be detained by way of punishment and approach of the Court should be to consider whether his presence would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering 6 Bail App No. 145/2025 with the evidence; all the material witnesses are officials of respondent- CBI, therefore, there is no likelihood of the applicant to influence the prosecution witnesses; and applicant cannot be subjected to incarceration merely on the ground that grant of bail would give a wrong message to the public. 6.1. The investigating authority has presented an incomplete charge sheet to defeat the right of the applicant of default bail, is another ground taken by the applicant. According to the applicant, since offences with which he has been charged, are punishable with imprisonment for a term of less than ten years, investigating agency was obliged to conclude the investigation within a period of 60 days in terms of Section 187(3)(ii) of BNSS and since the punishment of the offences mentioned in the charge sheet is maximum seven years, non-compliance of mandate of Section 187(3)(ii) of BNSS creates a constitutional, statutory and indefeasible right of bail by default in his favour and that charge sheet has been presented without obtaining sanction from the competent authority. 6.2. The applicant has also invoked the principle of parity, in view of the fact that co accused Rajesh Kumar Jain has already been admitted to bail by the trial court. 6.3. The applicant seeks his liberation in view of afore-noted change of circumstances, after dismissal of his bail application by this Court. 7. The plea has been opposed, per contra, by the respondent, primarily on the ground that applicant came to be apprehended red handed by CBI, while accepting illegal gratification of an amount of Rs.9,42,500 in his residential premises. It is urged that apart from the trap money, additional bribe money of Rs.73.11. lacs was also recovered 7 Bail App No. 145/2025 from the residential house of the applicant, consisting of Rs.10.00 lacs delivered by co-accused Rajesh Kumar Jain, which is established from the documentary and oral evidence collected during investigation. It is contention of the respondent that investigation has revealed that applicant has amassed huge money as illegal gratification from the railway Contractors and he failed to explain the source or account for the tainted money recovered from his residence. It is also contention of the respondent that the evidence in the form of recorded telephonic conversations between the applicant and co-accused would establish criminal conspiracy amongst them and that applicant is a habitual offender and is found involved in corrupt practices for long. 7.1. The respondent has also opposed the bail plea on the ground that further investigation under the provisions of Section 193 BNSS is still on, to ascertain a complete money trial, as to how, such huge amount landed in the possession of the applicant. In the circumstances, it is urged by the respondent that release of applicant on bail, would be detrimental for further investigation as likelihood of the applicant to influence the prosecution witnesses and tamper with the evidence cannot be ruled out. 8. Heard arguments and perused the file. 9. Learned Sr. Counsels for the applicant have relied upon Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.; (2018) 3 SCC 22, Mohd. Yousuf Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Jammu [Bail App No. 200/2024 a/w connected matters dated 23.10.2024], Davinder Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation [Bail App No. 186/2022 dated 16.06.2022], Umesh Kumar v. Incharge Police 8 Bail App No. 145/2025 Station, CBI, and anr. [Bail App No. 174/2020 dated 27.10.2020] and Burhan Din Wani v. UT of J&K and anr. [CrlA(D) No. 52/2024 dated 31.05.2025] to reiterate the grounds urged in the memo of application. 10. Ex adverso, learned Sr. AAG has reiterated the stand of the respondent-CBI in her arguments. She has relied upon a judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohd. Ishaq Bhat v. CBI [Bail App. No. 131/2024 dated 03.07.2024]. 11. There cannot be two opinions to the crystallized position of law that it is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is proved. The discretionary jurisdiction of a court of grant or refusal of bail is regulated by settled principles of law and facts and circumstances of each case. The facts and circumstances to be taken into consideration are the seriousness of the offence, potential impact on the investigation, the risk of the accused absconding, the nature of accusations, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail and, of course, Courts are obliged to balance the rights of the accused with a need to maintain public confidence in the justice system. 12. The respondent Agency has opposed the plea on the predominant premise of gravity and seriousness of the charge by contending that since the offences with which the applicant has been charged are economic offences and have resulted in huge loss to the public exchequer, propensity on his part to influence the prosecution witnesses, in the event of his release, cannot be ruled out. 9 Bail App No. 145/2025 12.1. Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has placed much reliance on a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohd. Ishaq Bhat (supra) to impress that an offence under the provisions of PC Act is different from other category of offences. 12.2. Hon‟ble Supreme Court and different High Courts across the country, from time to time, have expressed grave concern about rampant corruption in the society and have taken a view that bail, in such cases, should be considered with great care and circumspection with a view to strike a balance between the societal interest and individual interest and with zero tolerance to the corruption. 12.3. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohd. Ishaq Bhat is of the view that offences of cheating, corruption and other white collar offences are impossible without serious premeditation, therefore, they cannot be equated with other offences under the Penal Code and dealt with the same yardstick. It is trite that ratio of a particular judgment cannot be applied mechanically without a closer look at the background facts. An observation made in a case must be read and understood in the context in which it appears to have been made having regard to the facts and circumstances of the said case. 13. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2012) 1 SCC 40, while granting bail to accused, indicted in infamous 2-G spectrum scam, for offences under the PC Act, has held that personal liberty of an individual is a precious fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and could be curtailed only when imperative to the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case. It was held that “deprivation of liberty must be considered a 10 Bail App No. 145/2025 punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.” 13.1. Pertinently, in Sanjay Chandra, both Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi and High Court of Delhi had listed seriousness of the charge; the nature of evidence in support of the charge; the likely sentence to be imposed upon conviction; the possibility of interference with the witnesses; the objection of the prosecuting authorities and the possibility of absconding from justice, as relevant factors to refuse bail to the petitioner in offences under the PC Act. 13.2. However, the reasoning given by learned Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi, as also of the High Court was rejected by the Supreme Court in the following words: “25....... In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual.” 14. It is evident from the afore-quoted observation of Hon‟ble Supreme Court that provisions of PC Act are not different from other offences against human body or other category of offences and cannot be dealt with a different yardstick to deny the bail plea of an accused, merely because he is alleged to have been involved for the infringement of the provisions under the PC Act. Be it noted that there is no provision in the PC Act or in the Penal Code providing severe punishment for graft cases or stringent provisions regarding bail pending investigation or trial as in cases of NDPS or UA(P)A. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Sanjay 11 Bail App No. 145/2025 Chandra has clearly ruled that though seriousness of charge is a relevant consideration while considering a bail plea, however, both under the Penal Code and the PC Act, it is not the only factor and the real test to be taken note of is the punishment which could be imposed after the trial and conviction and that whether presence of accused during the trial could be secured or not. It is, therefore, manifest that a bail plea, in graft cases, under the PC Act is to be approached with the general principles, governing the grant or refusal of bail, in terms of Section 497 Cr.P.C. 15. Pertinently, in a similar fact situation, the bail plea in Sanjay Chandra was opposed on the premise that accused having amassed huge amount as illegal gratification was involved in economic offences, resulting in loss to the public exchequer. However, since the investigation of the case was complete and the charge sheet was already filed before the competent court, accused was directed to be released on bail. Relevant excerpt captured in para 46 of the judgment reads as below: “46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.” 16. Reverting to the present case, the investigation against the applicant has already culminated in final report in the competent court. The Offences, he is charged with are punishable with maximum imprisonment upto seven years. Co-accused Rajesh Kumar Jain has 12 Bail App No. 145/2025 already been admitted to bail by the trial Court. Most of the witnesses, cited by the prosecution, are official witnesses and the apprehension of the respondent with respect to the tampering of the evidence by influencing the prosecution witnesses can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. In the circumstances, further incarceration of the applicant shall not serve any purpose. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the present application is allowed and applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing a surety bond in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of trial court and a bond of personal recognizance of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of concerned Jail, subject, however, to the following conditions that: a. he shall not leave territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission; b. he shall not jump over bail and tamper with the prosecution evidence or make an attempt to influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; and c. he shall remain present during the trial on every date of hearing; 18. Violation of either of the aforesaid conditions shall entail in the forfeiture of bail bonds and applicant shall be taken into custody forthwith. (RAJESH SEKHRI) JUDGE Jammu: 08.07.2025 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? Yes