/2023 INSC 0288/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1148 OF 2023
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No. 295 of 2023]
Central Bureau of Investigation … Appellant
VERSUS
 Santosh Karnani & Anr. … Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1149 OF 2023
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No. 724 of 2023]
Rupesh Balwantbhai Brambhatt  … Appellant
VERSUS
Santosh Karnani & Ors.  …Respondents
JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The   Appellants   in   the   two   Criminal   Appeals,
the   Central   Bureau   of   Investigation   &   Rupesh
Balwantbhai Brambhatt (hereinafter, “complainant”)
respectively,   are   aggrieved   by   the   order   dated   19 th
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  1  of  37

December,   2022   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad allowing the anticipatory bail
application filed by Respondent No. 1 in connection
with FIR registered as C.R. No. RC0292022A0011 of
2022   before   CBI/ACB/Gandhinagar   Police   Station,
District Gandhinagar for the offence under Section 7
of   the   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988   as
amended in 2018.
BACKGROUND
3. The complainant is a businessman engaged in
the   construction   business   that   goes   by   the   name:
Safal   Construction   Pvt.   Ltd.   In   February   2019,
Respondent   No.   1,   an   IRS   Officer,   posted   as
Additional   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax,
Ahmedabad,   conducted   a   survey   for   the   financial
year 2018­19 under Section 133A of the Income Tax
Act,   1961   against   Safal   Construction   Pvt.   Ltd.
whereunder   the   group   disclosed   an   additional
income of Rs. 50 crores. 
4. Thereafter,   in   September   2021,   search   and
seizure   action   was   initiated   by   the   Investigation
Wing   of   Income   Tax   Department,   Ahmedabad
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  2  of  37

against Safal Construction Pvt. Ltd.  Following these
searches,   some   papers   related   to   the   complainant’s
business   were   seized   and   the   Central   Circle,
Range­1   Division   initiated   the   procedure   for   raising
a   demand   notice.   It   is   the   complainant’s   case   that
he   found   out   that   Respondent   No.   1   was   handling
his   case   and   would   be   preparing   the   appraisal
memo.   Subsequently,   the   complainant   and
Respondent No. 1 met frequently in connection with
the   case   and   it   is   alleged   that   during   these
interactions,   Respondent   No.   1   threatened   to   ruin
the   complainant’s   business   and   demanded   illegal
gratification.
5. On   29 th
  September,   2022,   Respondent   No.   1
allegedly contacted the complainant and told him to
meet   him   on   3 rd
  October,   2022.   Accordingly,   the
complainant   met   Respondent   No.   1   at   the   Income
Tax Office where Respondent No. 1 demanded illegal
gratification of Rs. 30 lakhs to help the complainant
with his case. This conversation was recorded by the
complainant   on   a   Digital   Voice   Recorder   which   has
been   handed   over   to   the   investigating   authorities
and a transcript of the same has also been provided
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  3  of  37

to   this   Court.   The   complainant   was   directed   to
deposit the amount in the account of one Vardhman
in the Dhara Angadia Firm. 
6. The   complainant   lodged   a   complaint   the   next
morning with ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad city at
07:15   hours   and   a   trap   was   then   laid.   The
complainant’s   employee   was   sent   to   the   Angadia
firm   with   the   bribe   money   amounting   to   Rs.   30
lakhs along with personnel from the ACB trap team.
Upon   depositing   Rs.   30   lakhs   with   Dhara   Angadia
firm,   the   complainant   contacted   Respondent   No.   1
through   WhatsApp   call   which   was   recorded   by   the
ACB team  wherein Respondent No. 1 acknowledged
payment of the amount. Immediately thereafter, one
ACB   team   went   to   detain   and   arrest   Respondent
No.   1,   who   along   with   some   staff   members,   is
alleged   to   have   physically   assaulted   the   ACB   team
and   escaped   from   the   office   due   to   the   ensuing
chaos.   It   is   also   claimed   that   Respondent   No.   1,
while   escaping   from   the   office,   handed   over   his
mobile   phone   to   a   colleague.   Simultaneously,
another   ACB   team   recovered   the   bribe   amount
deposited with Dhara Angadia. 
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  4  of  37

7. FIR   No.   12/2022   was   thus,   registered   against
Respondent No. 1 under Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2)
of   the   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988   on
4 th
 October, 2022.
8. Owing   to   the   gravity   of   the   case,   on
12 th
  October,  2022,  the   case   was   transferred   to   the
Central   Bureau   of   Investigation   (hereinafter,   “CBI”)
and   FIR  No.   12/2022  was  re­registered  as   C.R.  No.
RC0292022A0011   of   2022   under   Section   7   of   the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR records
that   Respondent   No.   1   evaded   arrest   by   the   ACB
team   and   was   still   at   large   at   the   time   of
re­registration of the FIR. 
9. Thereafter, a notice under Section 41A, Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, “CrPC”) was issued
to   Respondent   No.   1   calling   upon   him   to   appear
before   the   CBI   but   Respondent   No.   1   failed   to
respond.   On   17 th
  October,   2022,   Respondent   No.   1
wrote a letter to the Investigating Officer that he had
suffered   severe   anxiety   &   depression   due   to   the
allegations levelled against him and had, thus, gone
to   his   home   state   of   Rajasthan   for   medical
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  5  of  37

treatment.   He   sought   four   days’   time   to   join   the
investigation.
10. During   investigation   Smit   Thakkar,   owner   of
Dhara   Angadia   firm,   informed   the   authorities   that
the illegal gratification was deposited in the account
of  one Malav Ajitbhai Mehta.  It is also claimed that
prior   to   the   deposit   of   the   amount,   Malav   Mehta
informed   Smit   Thakkar   that   Rs.  30   lakhs   would  be
deposited   in   the   account   and   would   have   to   be
transferred to another person on the same day. 
11. Another   notice   under   Section   41A   was   issued
to   Respondent   No.  1  and   again,   he  failed  to   appear
before   the   CBI.   On   26 th
  October,   2022,   Respondent
No. 1 again sought one week’s time to appear before
the  Investigating  Officer   vide   a communication  sent
from   the   email   ID   of   Blue   Heaven   Hotel,   Jaipur.
Subsequently,  some  more   Section   41A  notices  were
issued   to   Respondent   No.   1,   to   which   he   sought
more   time   to   join   the   investigation   on   various
grounds.   He   simultaneously   preferred   an
application for grant of anticipatory bail. 
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  6  of  37

12. By an order dated 3 rd
 November, 2022, the City
Civil   &   Sessions   Court   at   Ahmedabad   rejected
Respondent No. 1’s application for anticipatory bail.
The   Special   Judge   ­   CBI   Court   No.   3   observed   that
Respondent   No.   1   instead   of   cooperating   with   the
investigating agency, had absconded and got himself
admitted   in   a   hospital   in   Rajasthan   to   evade   the
process   of   law.   Some   of   the   observations   made   by
the   Special   Judge,   CBI   Court,   are   to   the   following
effect:  
“Thus,   the   ground   of   ill   health   pleaded   by
the   Learned   Advocate   for   the   applicant
would hold no ground as this Court is of a
candid   opinion   that   the   applicant   instead
of   cooperating   with   the   Investigating
Agency had absconded and had got himself
admitted   in   hospital   at   his   native   in
Rajasthan with a view to evade the process
of law.
…   … …
In   view   of   the   aforesaid   facts   and
circumstances,   this   Court   is   of   a   candid
opinion   that   custodial   interrogation   of   the
present   applicant   is   a   must   to   reach   to
unearth   the   larger   conspiracy.   It   is
necessary   to   unveil   the   modus   operandi
adopted by the applicant in committing the
larger   conspiracy   and   without
interrogation,   it   would   be   impossible   to
collect   the   relevant   evidence   resulting   into
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  7  of  37

incomplete   investigation.   It   is   also   crystal
clear that the applicant with a view to avoid
arrest has filed the present application and
therefore,   instead   of   cooperating   in   the
investigation have tried to thwart the ∙same
and thus, it can be said that the applicant
is not cooperating in the investigation.
…   … …
This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact
that   investigation   in   the   matter   is   still
under progress and releasing the applicant
at this premature stage would pave way for
the applicant to influence the investigation,
hamper   the   witnesses   and   tamper   the
evidence.”
13. The   Court   eventually   held   that   custodial
interrogation of Respondent No. 1 was necessary  to
reach the root of the matter. 
14. Aggrieved   by   the   order   of   the   Special   Judge,
CBI   Court,   Respondent   No.   1   applied   for
anticipatory   bail   before   the   High   Court   of   Gujarat.
Meanwhile,   on   22 nd
  November,   2022,   the   Court   of
Special   CBI   Judge   issued   a   non­bailable   warrant
against Respondent No. 1.
15. The   High   Court,   vide   impugned   order   dated
19 th
  December,   2022,   granted   anticipatory   bail   to
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  8  of  37

Respondent   No.   1.   The   High   Court   observed   that
there   is   a   doubt   regarding   the   acceptance   of   illegal
gratification,   as   it   was   deposited   in   the   account   of
Vardhman   in   Dhara   Angadia   firm   and   there   is   no
evidence   with   respect   to   acceptance   of   the   amount
by   Respondent   No.   1.   The   reasons   on   the   basis   of
which   the   High   Court   proceeded   to   grant
anticipatory bail are recorded in paragraph 12 of its
order, which states as follows:  
“12.   This   Court   has   considered   following
aspects;
  (i)   The   FIR   is   registered   on
12.10.2022   for   the   offence   which   is
alleged   to   have   taken   place   on
04.10.2022. 
(ii)   Learned   APP   under   instructions
of   IO   is   unable   to   bring   on   record
any   special   circumstances   against
the applicant. 
(iii)   The   role   attributed   to   the
applicant­ accused; 
(iv) That the applicant is a Additional
Income   Tax   Commissioner   and   no
any   other   criminal   antecedents
against him; 
(v)   There   is   creating   serious   doubt
about demand and acceptance of the
amount; 
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  9  of  37

(vi) There  is  no discovery  or recovery
from the applicant;”
16. The   High   Court   further   directed   that   despite
grant of anticipatory bail, CBI could apply for police
remand   of   Respondent   No.   1   and   that   if   the   same
was   granted   by   the   competent   Magistrate,
Respondent   No.   1   would   be   set   free   immediately
upon completion of the police remand. The relevant
part   of   the   impugned   order   to   this   effect   reads   as
under:
“16. Despite this order, it would be open for
the   Investigating   Agency   to   apply   to   the
competent Magistrate,  for  police remand of
the   applicant.   The   applicant   shall   remain
present   before   the   learned   Magistrate   on
the first date of hearing of such application
and   on   all   subsequent   occasions,   as   may
be directed by the learned Magistrate. This
would   be   sufficient   to   treat   the   accused   in
the   judicial   custody   for   the   purpose   of
entertaining   application   of   the   prosecution
for police remand. This is, however, without
prejudice to the right of the accused to seek
stay   against   an   order   of   remand,   if,
ultimately,   granted   and   the   power   of   the
learned   Magistrate   to   consider   such   a
request   in   accordance   with   law.   It   is
clarified   that   the   applicant   even   if,
remanded   to   the   police   custody,   upon
completion of such period of police remand,
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  10  of  37

shall   be   set   free   immediately,   subject   to
other   conditions   of   this   anticipatory   bail
order.  At the trial, the Trial Court shall not
be   influenced   by   the   prima   facie
observations   made   by   this   Court   while
enlarging   the   applicant   on   bail.     Rule   is
made absolute. Direct service is permitted.”
17. Following   the   High   Court’s   directions,
Respondent   No.   1   joined   the   investigation   and
appeared   on   three   days   but   is   stated   to   have   not
produced his  mobile  phone(s)  though  he  was asked
to do so repeatedly. The CBI, then, applied for police
remand of Respondent No. 1 and, on 30 th
 December,
2022,   the   Special   Judge,   CBI   Court   No.   3   partly
allowed   the   said   application.   The   Court,   upon
perusal   of   the   case   diary,   observed   that   the
allegations   against   Respondent   No.   1   seem   well­
founded   and   that   remand   is   necessary   for   the
purpose of investigation to collect the missing link of
evidence   and   to   unearth   the   larger   conspiracy.   The
application was allowed in the following terms:
“The   Accused   Mr.   Santosh   Kumar   Karnani
is directed to appear and surrender himself
to   the   custody   of   Investigating   Officer,
CBI /ACB/ Gandhinagar from 10.00 am to
7.00   pm   on   dated   31/12/2022,
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  11  of  37

01/01/2023,   02/01/2023   and   on
03/01/2023,   in   connection   with   RC­
0292022A0011   GNR.   It   is   further   directed
that   accused   shall   be   set   free   at   7.00   pm
on respective dates. 
Further  as  per  the  direction  of  Honourable
Gujarat   High   Court,   upon   completion   of
aforesaid period of remand, the accused be
set   free   upon   expiry   of   remand   period   and
report   be   submitted   to   this   Court   along
with   copies   of   medical   examination   paper/
Certificate.  The  case  diary  be handed  back
to the Investigating Officer. 
The   accused   is   hereby   directed   to   give   full
cooperation to  Investigating  officer  to  carry
out proper investigation of this case.
The   Investigating   Officer   is   hereby   directed
to   strictly   adhere   to   the   guidelines   laid
down   by   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   of
India   in   case   of   D.K.   Basu   vs.   State   of
W.B.   reported   in   AIR   1997   SC   610   and
Honourable   Gujarat   High   Court,   while   the
accused is in custody and refrain from any
custodial ill­treatment or torture”
18. CBI,   thereafter,   preferred   an   application   for
suspension of the aforesaid order before Special CBI
Court   on   the   ground   that   they   wish   to   challenge   it
before   the   High   Court   of   Gujarat.   Hence,   Special
Judge, CBI Court No. 3 stayed operation of its order
till   7 th
  January,   2023.   This   was   later   extended   by
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  12  of  37

the Court till the final disposal of the Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023.
SUBMISSIONS  
19. Assailing   the   impugned   order   granting
anticipatory   bail   to   Respondent   No.   1,   Mr.   Tushar
Mehta,   learned   Solicitor   General   of   India   on   behalf
of the CBI made the following submissions:
i. Considering   the   gravity   and   seriousness   of
the   offence   and   the   position   held   by
Respondent   No.   1,   the   High   Court   erred   in
exercising   its   discretionary   jurisdiction
under Section 438 of the CrPC;
ii. The   High   Court   did   not   appreciate   the
material collected against Respondent No. 1
which   establishes   a   clear   demand   &
acceptance   of   bribe   by   him   in   view   of   his
voice   recordings   seeking   an   amount   of   Rs.
30   lakhs   from   the   complainant   and
acknowledging   payment   thereof.   The
relevant   voice   recordings   have   been
analysed and the voices have been identified
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  13  of  37

to   be   those   of   Respondent   No.   1   and   the
complainant; 
iii. The   High   Court   grossly   erred   in   observing
that the FIR was registered after a long delay
on 12 th
  October, 2022. On that day, the CBI
had   only   re­registered   FIR   No.   12/2022
which was  initially   registered by  ACB  Police
Station on 4 th
 October, 2022. 
iv. Respondent   No.   1’s   name   was   included   in
the   ‘Agreed   List’   in   respect   of   Group   A
officers   of   the   Income   Tax   Department   for
the year 2015 and thus, his service record is
not clean;
v. Respondent   No.   1   evaded   arrest   when   the
ACB   team   raided   his   office   after   he   had
acknowledged   the   payment   of   the   bribe
money   over   a   WhatsApp   call.   Respondent
No. 1 & his colleagues used criminal force to
deter the ACB team from effecting arrest and
collecting material evidence. While doing so,
Respondent   No.   1   handed   over   his   mobile
phone,   which   is   a   crucial   piece   of   evidence,
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  14  of  37

to his colleague to ensure that the same was
not   seized   by   the   investigating   agency.   This
has   been   recorded   in   the   CCTV   cameras   of
the office;
vi. The audio recordings and video footage have
been   examined   by   the   Directorate   of
Forensic   Science,   Gujarat   certifying   their
genuineness.   The   report   concludes   that
there are no signs of alteration in the same;
vii. Respondent   No.   1   falsely   pleaded   that   he
had   taken   casual   leave   from   the   competent
authority   and   misled   the   investigating
agency   by   sending   a   reply   to   the   notice
issued under Section 41A, CrPC through the
email ID of Blue Heaven Hotel, Jaipur. Upon
investigation,   it   was   found   that   Respondent
No. 1 had never stayed at that hotel; 
viii. During   investigation,   reliable   evidence   has
come   on   record   to   show   that   other   Income
Tax   officials   were   hands   in   glove   with
Respondent   No.   1,   which   is   also   evident
from the active role played by some officials
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  15  of  37

in   helping   Respondent   No.1   to   avoid   arrest
by  the  ACB  on  4 th
  October, 2022. Custodial
interrogation   is   highly   necessary   to
ascertain   the   deeper   plot   at   play   and   to
examine   the   involvement   of   other   Income
Tax officials;
ix. Respondent   No.   1   appeared   before   the   CBI
after   the   protection   granted   by   the   High
Court   but   did   not   handover   his   mobile
handsets   which   are   a   crucial   piece   of
evidence   and   is,   thus,   not   cooperating   with
the   investigation.   Custodial   interrogation   is
necessary   in   this   case   to   take   the
investigation to its logical conclusion;
x. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of
this   Court   in   State   Rep.   By   The   CBI   v.
Anil   Sharma 1
  to   argue   that   “custodial
interrogation   is   qualitatively   more
elicitation­oriented   than   questioning   a
suspect   who   is   well   ensconced   with   a
favourable   order   under   Section   438   of   the
1   (1997) 7 SCC 187.
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  16  of  37

Code.   In   a   case   like   this,   effective
interrogation   of   a   suspected   person   is   of
tremendous   advantage   in   disinterring   many
useful information and also materials which
would have been concealed. Success in such
interrogation   would   elude   if   the   suspected
person   knows   that   he   is   well   protected   and
insulated   by   a   pre­arrest   bail   order   during
the   time   he   is   interrogated.   Very   often
interrogation   in   such   a   condition   would
reduce to a mere ritual.”;
xi. Reliance   has   also   been   placed   on   the
decisions   in   Prem   Shankar   Prasad   v.
State   of   Bihar 2
,   State   of   Madhya
Pradesh   v.   Pradeep   Sharma 3
  and   Lavesh
v.   State   (NCT   of   Delhi) 4
  to   urge   that
anticipatory bail should not be granted to an
absconder;
xii. The   High   Court   passed   an   unusual   order
directing that the investigating agency would
2  2021 SCC OnLine SC 955.
3   (2014) 2 SCC 171.
4   (2012) 8 SCC 730.
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  17  of  37

be   at   liberty   to   apply   to   the   competent
Magistrate   for   police   remand   of   Respondent
No.   1   and   in   the   same   breath,   prevented
custodial interrogation of the main suspect.
20. Supporting the above submissions on behalf of
the   CBI,   Mr.   Maninder   Singh,   learned   Senior
Counsel   appearing   for   the   complainant,   made
following additions: 
i. The   High   Court   ignored   the   observations   &
findings   of   the   learned   Sessions   Court
recorded   while   rejecting   Respondent   No.   1’s
application   for   anticipatory   bail.   The   said
Court   had   gone   through   the   material   on
record,  including  the  case papers, and  then
only   observed   that   custodial   interrogation
was   necessary   to   enable   the   investigation
agency to reach the core of the matter. 
ii. The   High   Court   failed   to   appreciate   the
unequivocal   demand   of   Rs.   30   lakhs   made
by Respondent No. 1, which was recorded by
the complainant on a Digital Voice Recorder
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  18  of  37

and acceptance of that bribe money through
Dhara Angadia Firm.
21. On the other hand, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr.
Shyam   Divan,   learned   Senior   Counsels   strongly
refuted   the   insinuations   made   against   Respondent
No.   1   and   defended   the   High   Court   order   granting
pre­arrest bail with the following submissions:
i. The   allegations   levelled   against   Respondent
No.   1   are   false   and   concocted.   Respondent
No.   1   never   raised   any   demand   for
gratification   as   alleged   by   the   complainant.
Respondent   No.   1   had   no   connection   with
the search and seizure action taken against
the   complainant’s   company   in   September
2021   or   with   the   preparation   of   the
appraisal   report.   Respondent   No.   1   is   not
the   Assessing   Officer   of   the   complainant’s
case   and   the   matter   is   entrusted   to   some
other officer;
ii. There   is   no   evidence   of   demand   or
acceptance   of   bribe   which   are   sine   qua   non
for   establishing   the   offence.   In   trap   cases
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  19  of  37

under  Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption
Act,   the   conversation   of   demand   is   to   be
recorded by the complainant in the presence
of independent panchas and the trap laying
Officer   has   to   ensure   that   there   is   no
possibility   of   any   tampering.   In   the   present
case,   the   voice   recording   of   the   alleged
demand   has   been   done   without   any   police
involvement   and   thus,   holds   no   evidentiary
value.   The   alleged   deposit   of   the   amount
was   made   in   an   Angadia   firm   which   is
unknown   to   Respondent   No.   1   and   cannot
be   termed   as   acceptance   of   bribe.
Respondent   No.   1   has   no   connection   with
Malav   Ajitbhai   Mehta,   who   is   stated   to   be
the   owner   of   the   account   wherein   the
amount   was   deposited   and   Respondent   No.
1 was not present at the site of the Angadia
firm;
iii. The   complainant   has   animosity   with
Respondent   No.   1   due   to   the   past   survey
action   taken   for   the   financial   year   2018­19
against his company which led to disclosure
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  20  of  37

of   additional   income   of   Rs.   50   crores.   This
fact   has   not   been   disclosed   in   the   FIR.   The
complainant   has   falsely   implicated
Respondent No. 1 due to his apprehensions
that Respondent No. 1 will impose huge tax
liability on him & his company;
iv. A perusal of FIR No. 12/2022 shows  that it
was   registered   on   4 th
  October,  2022   at   9:30
pm   while   the   acts   of   the   alleged   demand,
laying down of the trap, deposit of money at
Dhara   Angadia   and   the   raid   at   Respondent
No.  1’s  office  occurred   on   3 rd
  October,  2022
and   during   the   daytime   on   4 th
  October,
2022. Additionally, there is no record of the
complainant  meeting  police  officials  prior  to
the   registration   of   FIR.   The   delay   in
registration   of   FIR   which   is   more   than   24
hours   after   the   alleged   demand   of   illegal
gratification, has not been explained;
v. Only   Respondent   No.   1   is   sought   to   be
arrested by the CBI. The owner or employees
of   Dhara   Angadia   firm   have   not   been
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  21  of  37

arrested   and   the   High   Court   order   granting
anticipatory   bail   to   Malav   Mehta   has   not
been   challenged   by   the   CBI   before   this
Court; 
vi. CBI   has   misused   the   provisions   of   Section
41A of the CrPC to arrest Respondent No. 1.
A   bare   perusal   of   the   provision   and   the
guidelines   laid   down   by   this   Court   in
Arnesh   Kumar   v.   State   of   Bihar 5
  suggest
that   a   notice   under   Section   41A   would   be
issued   only   when   the   investigating   agency
does not require the custody of a person. In
the present case, notices under Section 41A
were issued post the raid conducted by ACB
team   at   Respondent   No.   1’s   office   by   which
time they had decided to arrest him;
vii. As per settled law of this Court, Respondent
No. 1 cannot be termed as an absconder  as
he was availing his legal remedies. However,
despite   this,   the   investigating   agency
published   notices   in   the   media   and   pasted
5   (2014) 8 SCC 273.
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  22  of  37

‘Wanted’   posters   with   Respondent   No.   1’s
name,   photo   and   designation   at   various
places,   which   indicates   mala   fides   of   the
investigation agency;
viii. The   bona   fides   of   Respondent   No.   1   are
evident   from   his   conduct   post   the   grant   of
anticipatory   bail.   As   directed   by   the   High
Court,   Respondent   No.   1   appeared   before
the   CBI   on   at   least   four   occasions,   as   and
when   called.   Respondent   No.   1   has   also
voluntarily   given   his   voice   samples.   Given
the   fact   that   Respondent   No.   1   is
cooperating with the investigation, custodial
interrogation   is   not   required.   The   High
Court   erred   in   directing   that,   despite   the
grant   of   anticipatory   bail,   the   investigating
agency   would   be   at   liberty   to   apply   to   the
competent   Magistrate   for   police   remand.
This   part   of   the   order   was   to   the
disadvantage   of   Respondent   No.   1   but   he
abided by the same and appeared before the
Court   when   the   CBI   applied   for   police
remand; 
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  23  of  37

ix. Respondent No. 1 has an impeccable service
record  as is evident from  his  posting  to  one
of   the   most   sensitive   assignments   in   the
department. Such postings are only given to
senior   officers   with   clean   images.   His
integrity   is   beyond   doubt   and   he   has   an
unblemished past record. There is no case of
disproportionate   assets   against   Respondent
No. 1; 
x. Section  17A  of the Prevention  of Corruption
Act, 1988 as amended in 2018, provides for
a   bar   on   any   enquiry,   inquiry   or
investigation   by   a   police   officer   into   an
alleged   offence   by   a   public   servant,   where
the   alleged   offence   relates   to   any   decision
taken   or   recommendation   made   in   exercise
of   official   functions   or   duties,   without   the
previous   approval   of   the   competent
authority.   In   this   case,   the   investigating
agency   has   not   complied   with   the
mandatory   procedure   of   Section   17A   and
has   initiated   investigation   on   the   complaint
without any prior approval of the Competent
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  24  of  37

Authority.   The   breach   of   these   mandatory
conditions   vitiates   the   proceedings   initiated
against Respondent No. 1; 
xi. In these circumstances, the High Court has
rightly   granted   anticipatory   bail   to
Respondent   No.   1   and   has   provided
adequate   reasoning   for   the   same   in
paragraph 12 of the impugned order; 
xii. Cancellation of bail has to be dealt with on a
completely different footing in comparison to
refusal   of   bail   and   ‘cogent   and
overwhelming’   reasons   are   necessary   to
cancel bail once  granted. Reliance  has  been
placed   in   this   regard   on   Dolat   Ram   v.
State   of   Haryana 6
  wherein   a   two­judge
Bench of this Court held that:
“4.   Rejection  of  bail  in   a  non­bailable
case   at   the   initial   stage   and   the
cancellation   of   bail   so   granted,   have
to   be   considered   and   dealt   with   on
different   basis.   Very   cogent   and
overwhelming   circumstances   are
necessary   for   an   order   directing   the
cancellation   of   the   bail,   already
6   (1995) 1 SCC 349.
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  25  of  37

granted.   Generally   speaking,   the
grounds   for   cancellation   of   bail,
broadly   (illustrative   and   not
exhaustive)   are:   interference   or
attempt   to   interfere   with   the   due
course   of   administration   of   justice   or
evasion   or   attempt   to   evade   the   due
course   of   justice   or   abuse   of   the
concession   granted   to   the   accused   in
any   manner.   The   satisfaction   of   the
court, on the basis of material placed
on  the  record  of  the  possibility  of  the
accused   absconding   is   yet   another
reason   justifying   the   cancellation   of
bail.   However,   bail   once   granted
should   not   be   cancelled   in   a
mechanical   manner   without
considering   whether   any   supervening
circumstances   have   rendered   it   no
longer   conducive   to   a   fair   trial   to
allow   the   accused   to   retain   his
freedom by enjoying the concession of
bail during the trial.”
xiii. No   supervening   circumstances   for
cancellation of bail have been pointed out by
the CBI or the complainant. 
ANALYSIS
22. The law on grant of anticipatory bail has been
summed­up   by   this   Court   in   Siddharam
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  26  of  37

Satlingappa   Mhetre   v.   State   of   Maharashtra 7
,
after due deliberation on the parameters evolved by
the Constitution Bench in   Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia
v. State of Punjab 8
.   This Court held thus:
“112. The following factors and parameters
can   be   taken   into   consideration   while
dealing with anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation
and   the   exact   role   of   the   accused   must   be
properly   comprehended   before   arrest   is
made; 
(ii)   The   antecedents   of   the   applicant
including   the   fact   as   to   whether   the
accused   has   previously   undergone
imprisonment   on   conviction   by   a   court   in
respect of any cognizable offence; 
(iii)   The   possibility   of   the   applicant   to   flee
from justice; 
(iv)   The   possibility   of   the   accused's
likelihood   to   repeat   similar   or   other
offences;
(v)   Where   the   accusations  have  been  made
only   with   the   object   of   injuring   or
humiliating   the   applicant   by   arresting   him
or her; 
(vi)   Impact   of   grant   of   anticipatory   bail
particularly   in   cases   of   large   magnitude
affecting a very large number of people; 
7   (2011) 1 SCC 694.
8   (1980) 2 SCC 565.
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  27  of  37

(vii)   The   courts   must   evaluate   the   entire
available material against the accused very
carefully.   The   court   must   also   clearly
comprehend   the   exact   role   of   the   accused
in the case. The cases in which the accused
is   implicated   with   the   help   of   Sections   34
and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court
should consider with even greater care and
caution   because   over­implication   in   the
cases   is   a   matter   of   common   knowledge
and concern; 
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant
of   anticipatory   bail,   a   balance   has   to   be
struck   between   two   factors,   namely,   no
prejudice should be caused to the free, fair
and   full   investigation   and   there   should   be
prevention   of   harassment,   humiliation   and
unjustified detention of the accused; 
(ix)   The   court   to   consider   reasonable
apprehension   of   tampering   of   the   witness
or   apprehension   of   threat   to   the
complainant;
(x)   Frivolity   in   prosecution   should   always
be considered and it is only the element of
genuineness   that   shall   have   to   be
considered   in   the   matter   of   grant   of   bail
and in the event of there being some doubt
as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in
the normal course of events, the accused is
entitled to an order of bail.”
23. In   Sushila   Aggarwal   v.   State   (NCT   of
Delhi) 9
,  the Constitution Bench reiterated that while
9   (2020) 5 SCC 1.
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  28  of  37

deciding   applications   for   anticipatory   bail,   courts
should   be   guided   by   factors   like   the   nature   and
gravity   of   the   offences,   the   role   attributed   to   the
applicant, and the facts of the case.
24. The   time­tested   principles   are   that   no
straitjacket   formula   can   be   applied   for   grant   or
refusal of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion of
the Court shall be guided by various relevant factors
and   largely   it   will   depend   upon   the   facts   and
circumstances of each case. The Court must draw a
delicate   balance   between   liberty   of   an   individual   as
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and
the   need   for   a   fair   and   free   investigation,   which
must   be   taken   to   its   logical   conclusion.   Arrest   has
devastating   and   irreversible   social   stigma,
humiliation,   insult,   mental   pain   and   other   fearful
consequences.   Regardless   thereto,   when   the   Court,
on consideration of material information gathered by
the Investigating Agency, is  prima facie  satisfied that
there   is   something   more   than   a   mere   needle   of
suspicion   against   the   accused,   it   cannot   jeopardise
the   investigation,   more   so   when   the   allegations   are
grave in nature. 
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  29  of  37

25. Keeping   these   principles   in   mind,   we   proceed
to evaluate the rival submissions. At the outset, it is
to be noted that the High Court fell in a factual error
in   observing   that   FIR   was   registered   on
12 th
  October,   2022   for   the   offence   alleged   to   have
taken   place   on   3 rd
  and   4 th
  October,   2022.   The   FIR
was registered by the ACB against Respondent No. 1
on   4 th
  October,   2022   under   Sections   7,   13(1)   and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
was re­registered by CBI on 12 th
 October, 2022.
26. Further,   the   primary   ground   assigned   by   the
High Court to grant anticipatory bail to Respondent
No. 1 is that there was doubt as to the acceptance of
the   bribe   amount   since   records   of   Dhara   Angadia
firm   had   not   been   produced   establishing   any   link
between Respondent No. 1 & the firm. 
27. The   CBI   has   produced   the   case   diary   which
contains the statement made by Smit Thakkar, who
handles   Dhara   Angadia   firm.   He   has   clearly   stated
that   Malav   Mehta   was   the   owner   of   Vardhman
account and had informed him that 30 lakhs rupees
would   be   deposited   in   his   account   on   4 th
  October,
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  30  of  37

2022, which in turn had to be sent to someone else.
The   purported   recording   of   conversation   between
the   complainant   and   Respondent   No.   1   wherein
Respondent   No.   1   thanked   the   complainant,   after
the deposit of amount in the Vardhman account, is
a reasonable link to connect Respondent No. 1 with
the   deposit   of   illegal   gratification   in   Dhara   Angadia
firm,   thereby   prima   facie   showing   acceptance
thereof.
28. Regarding   the   alleged   discrepancy   of   delay   of
more   than   24   hours   in   the   registration   of   FIR,   we
find   from   the   material   produced   before   us   that   the
complainant   started   narrating   the   complaint   at
07:15   hours   and   it   ended   at   08:00   hours   on
4 th
  October,   2022.   The   panchnama,   annexed   in   the
case   diary,   provides   details   of   the   trap   laid   by   the
ACB   and   lists   all   the   activities   of   the   ACB   team   on
that   day,   thereby   dispelling   any   doubts   of   mala
fides  on the part of the investigating agencies.
29. We   have   also   gone   through   the   statement   of
Mr.   Vivek   Johri,   Assistant   Commissioner   of   Income
Tax   who   has   stated   that   Respondent   No.   1   handed
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  31  of  37

over   his   mobile   phone   to   him   before   leaving   the
office, which Mr. Johri later threw away. 
30. The   manner   in   which   Respondent   No.   1
forcefully   evaded   his   arrest   with   the   help   of   his
colleagues   and   got   the   evidence   destroyed,   is   a
strong   circumstance   to   indicate   his   complicity   at
this stage though a clear picture would emerge only
on completion of investigation.
31. The   nature   and   gravity   of   the   alleged   offence
should   have   been   kept   in   mind   by   the   High   Court.
Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and
must   be   dealt   with   iron   hands.   It   not   only   leads   to
abysmal   loss   to   the   public   exchequer   but   also
tramples   good   governance.     The   common   man
stands   deprived   of   the   benefits   percolating   under
social   welfare   schemes   and   is   the   worst   hit.     It   is
aptly said, “Corruption is a tree whose branches are
of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere;
and   the   dew   that   drops   from   thence,   Hath   infected
some   chairs   and   stools   of   authority.”   Hence,   the
need to be extra conscious.
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  32  of  37

32. From   the   material   placed   on   record,   it   seems
that   prima facie , the allegations against Respondent
No. 1 cannot be brushed aside lightly at this stage.
There   appears   to   be   a   well­organised   syndicate
comprising   officers   and   officials   of   the   Income   Tax
Department, businessmen and Hawala traders, who
are in tandem. Such a nexus needs to be unearthed
through   an   unimpaired   and   unobstructed
investigation.
33. The   contention   that   prior   approval   of
investigation,   as   mandated   under   Section   17A   of
Prevention of Corruption Act, has not been obtained
and   thus,   the   proceedings   initiated   against
Respondent   No.   1   stand   vitiated,   has   no   legal   or
factual basis. Section 17A merely contemplates that
police officers shall not conduct any enquiry, inquiry
or investigation into any offence alleged to have been
committed   by   a   public   servant   where   the   alleged
offence is relatable to any recommendation made or
decision   taken   in   discharge   of   official   functions   or
duties,   without   the   previous   approval   of   the
competent authority. The first proviso to the section
states   that   such  approval   is   not   necessary  in   cases
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  33  of  37

involving   arrest   of   the   person   on   the   spot   on   the
charges of accepting undue advantage.
34. As   may   be   seen,   the   first   proviso   to   Section
17A   refers   to   cases   wherein   a   public   servant   is
charged   with   acceptance   of   an   undue   advantage   or
attempt   thereof.   A   prior   approval   or   sanction   to
investigate such an officer in a trap case is likely to
defeat   the   very   purpose   of   trap   and   the
investigation,   which   is   not   the   underlying   intention
of   the   legislature.   The   investigation   against
Respondent No. 1, being an accused of demanding a
bribe,   did   not   require   any   previous   approval   of   the
Central   Government.   That   apart,   the   accusation
against   Respondent   No.   1   does   not   revolve   around
any   recommendations   made   or   decisions   taken   by
him in his quasi­judicial or administrative capacity.
35. It is true that cancellation of bail must be done
only   for   cogent   and   overwhelming   reasons.
Nevertheless,   setting   aside   an   unjustified   order
granting   bail   is   distinct   from   cancellation   of   bail.
This   Court   would   not,   invariably   intervene   into   the
judicial discretion exercised by the High Court while
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  34  of  37

granting bail to an accused. All that to be ensured is
that   the   High   Court   exercises   its   discretion
judiciously,   cautiously   and   strictly   in   conformity
with   the   basic   principles   laid   down   by   this   Court
from time to time in a series of decisions.
36. The Constitution Bench in   Sushila Aggarwal
(supra)  observed that:
“92.11.   The   correctness   of   an   order
granting   bail,   can   be   considered   by   the
appellate or superior court at the behest of
the   State   or   investigating   agency,   and   set
aside on the ground that the court granting
it did not consider material facts or crucial
circumstances.”
SUMMATION
37. Having   considered   the   nature   of   allegations,
material   on   record   and   the   settled   legal   principles
on grant of anticipatory bail, we are of the view that,
howsoever hard or harsh it may be, the High Court
ought   to   have   refrained   itself   from   extending
protection   against   arrest   to   Respondent   No.   1   in
exercise   of   its   discretionary   jurisdiction   under
Section 438 of the CrPC. 
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  35  of  37

38. Assuming   Respondent   No.   1   had   some   valid
apprehensions that the actions of ACB (State Police)
were   actuated   with   extraneous   reasons,   he   can   no
longer   say   so   once   the   investigation   has   been
transferred to CBI. We do not find any  allegation of
personal   vendetta,   victimisation,   bias   or   ulterior
motive against the Central Agency. In any case, CBI
is   expected   to   carry   out   a   free,   fair   and
dispassionate   investigation   with   faithful   observance
to   the   rights   of   an   accused,   who   is   subjected   to
custodial interrogation.
39. The   appeals   are,   accordingly,   allowed.   The
impugned   judgment   and   order   of   the   High   Court
dated   19 th
  December,   2022   is   set   aside   and   the
anticipatory  bail  application  of  Respondent  No.  1  is
dismissed.   As   a   consequence   thereto,   the   order
dated   30 th
  December,   2022   passed   by   the   Special
Judge,   CBI   Court   No.   3   partly   allowing   CBI’s
application for remand is also set aside. 
40. We   clarify   that   this   Court   has   expressed   only
prima   facie   opinion   on   the   merits   of   the   allegations
for the limited purpose to refuse or grant pre­arrest
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  36  of  37

bail.   If   Respondent   No.   1   moves   an   application   for
grant   of   regular   bail   before   an   appropriate   Court,
the same shall be considered on its own merits and
in   accordance   with   law,   uninfluenced   by   the
observations made hereinabove.
41. The   appeals   are   disposed   of   in   the   above
terms.
42. Pending   application(s),   if   any,   stand   disposed
of as well.
…....…………………..J.
(SURYA KANT)
…....…………………..J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
New Delhi;
April 17, 2023.
Crl. A. No._____ of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 295 of 2023 etc.                   Page  37  of  37