Kangkan Kashyap and Anr v. The Central Bureau of Investigation

ORDER Date : 17.09.2024 Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Haloi, learned Standing counsel, CBI.

¶2By this application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioners namely, Kangkan Kashyap and Angkan Kashap @ Angkan Borpuzari, have prayed for bail in connection with RC-0172024A0004 under Section 120(B) IPC, 61(2) of BNS, 2023, Section 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).

¶3It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is a bona fide businessman and the Director of M/s KXK Technologies Pvt. Ltd., while petitioner No. 2 is an employee of the aforesaid firm. It is also submitted that no incriminating material has been seized from the conscious possession of the petitioners. It is further submitted that no offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be applied to the present petitioners, as they are not public servants within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Act; therefore, these offences cannot be attributed to them.

¶4According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they have been arrested in connection with the instant case in a mechanical manner, without following the due process of law, and were never issued a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, corresponding to Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. Assuming, but not Page No.# 3/5 admitting, that the allegations are true, any offence that could be made out against the petitioners would, at best, fall under Sections 7A, 8, 9, 10, or 12 of the P.C. Act. The petitioners are not connected with the main offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(a), and 13(2) of the P.C. Act, and by not issuing a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C., the investigating agency has violated the directions set forth by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. It is further submitted that Petitioner No. 1 is suffering from hypertension and high cholesterol and is currently undergoing constant medication. The petitioners have been detained in custody for last 52 days since their arrest on

26.07.2024. The offence as alleged against the petitioners, the mandatory period of detention is 60 days. Considering the nature of offence as well as length of detention, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following case laws-

(i) N. Vijaykumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 3 SCC

687.

(ii) P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in

(2020) 13 SCC 337.

(iii) Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920.

(iv) State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21.

¶5Mr. Haloi, learned Standing counsel, CBI, has produced the case diary and Page No.# 4/5 submits that the petitioners are indeed involved in the alleged offence and there is sufficient incriminating materials found in the case diary against the petitioners. The investigation is still in progress. Considering the nature of the offence, the petitioners may not be enlarged on bail at this stage.

¶6I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the case diary.

¶7It is to be noted that the petitioners have been languishing in judicial custody for last 52 days, presuming that substantial part of investigation has been completed. Under such backdrop, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶8Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with RC-0172024A0004 under Section 120(B) of IPC, 61(2) of BNS, 2023, Section 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one suitable surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam.

¶9The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioners:

(a) shall not leaves the territorial jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam without prior written permission from him/her;

(b) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police Page No.# 5/5 officer;

(c) shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case.

¶10In the view of the above, the bail application stands disposed of.

¶11Send back the case diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010162742024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oBailoAppln./2555/2024o KANGKANoKASHYAPoANDoANRo S/OoLToPRADEEPoKUMARoBORPUZARIoPERMANENToR/OoHOUSEoNO.o183o TNSoPATHoNEHRUoPARKoROADoJORHAToNEARoPOLYTECNICoSCHOOLoDIST. JORHAToASSAMoPINo785001oPRESENTLYoRESIDINGoAToFLAToNOo982oATSo GREENSoVILLAGEoSECTORo93AoNOIDAoGAUTAMoBUDDHAoNAGARoUTTARo PRADESHo201304 2:oANGKANoKASHYAP oJORHAT 2:oANGKANoKASHYAP oS/OoLToPRADEEPoKUMARoBORPUZARIoR/OoHOUSEoNOo183oTNSoPATHo NEHRUoPARKoROADoJORHAToNEARoPOLYTECHNICoSCHOOLoDISToJORHATo ASSAMoPIN78500 o VERSUSo THEoCENTRALoBUREAUoOFoINVESTIGATIONo REPoBYoSCoCBIoGUWAHATI AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oAoCHAUDHURY,oMR.oPoKoDAS,MR.oNoMAHAJAN,MR.oDo BORAo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oSC,oCBI,oo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI