VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2018 › High Court of Delhi

Upendra Rai v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
11 December 2018
Bench
Mukta Guptaauthor
Case no.
BAIL APPLN. 2326/2018

Judgment

Order dasti.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE DECEMBER 11, 2018 'rk'

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 3rd December, 2018 Decided on: 11th December, 2018 + BAIL APPLN.2326/2018 UPENDRA RAI ... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Siddharth Luthra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sidharth Aggarwal, Mr.Arjun Dewan, Mr.Arjun Mukherjee, Mr.Shehryar Khan, Ms.Jhanvi Dubey and Ms.Sowjhanya Shantanam, Advocates versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Nikhil Goel, SPP, CBI with Mr.Gurpreet Hora and Mr.Ashutosh Ghade, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No.RC-217-2018 A 0004 CBI-AC-II under sections 120-B/384 IPC and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short 'PC Act'). 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is not a public servant no public servant has been found to be involved, Section 8 of the PC Act is not attracted. Further, offence punishable under Section 384 IPC entails a punishment of imprisonment for a period of maximum three years and the petitioner has been in custody now since 10th July, 2018, thus he be released on bail. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the contents of the FIR and states that the status report filed by the CBI relies on facts which are not founded in the FIR nor part of investigation. Despite the fact that the petitioner was in custody in another FIR and orders were passed in favour of CBI to interrogate the petitioner, no efforts were made to carry out the investigation and after the release on bail in the other case, the petitioner was arrested in this case. Charge-sheet having been filed petitioner is no more required for the investigation which is based primarily on the documentary evidence. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1216 Babji Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. 4. Learned counsel for the CBI opposing the bail application contends that not only charge-sheet for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 384 IPC and Section 8 of the PC Act has been filed, the petitioner's antecedents do not warrant bail as he indulges in tempering of the evidence. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Crl.M.C.3238/2018 when bail granted to the petitioner by the learned Special Judge, CBI on 8th June, 2018 was cancelled by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the CBI before this Court. He contends that observations of the Coordinate Bench of this Court would be binding in the present case as well. 5. The above noted FIR was registered on the complaint of one Balvinder S.Malhotra, Director of M/s.White Lion Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai who alleged that the petitioner approached one Kapil Wadhawan, a relative of the promoter of M/s.White Lion Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. Hiten Sakhuja, portraying himself to be a broker of the Income Tax Department and various other government departments. He impressed on Kapil Wadhawan that he is a senior journalist and has worked with Tehelka, Star TV and is connected to big media houses. The petitioner claimed that he had sensitive information from the Income Tax department relating to the raids to be conducted on the companies related/associated with M/s.White Lion Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. and that action could be initiated against them under the new Benami Act. He threatened that he had the potential to tarnish the image of the associated companies and their promoters due to his media connections. Thus, Kapil Wadhawan met the petitioner at his residence in Greater Kailash Part-I where Kapil Wadhawan was shown a big bunch of documents of the Income Tax department wherein action was contemplated against a number of companies including those related/associated with M/s.White Lion Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner demanded huge money to settle the matter with the Income

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.