Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rachna Tiwari PDF
Rachna Tiwari PDF
Rachna Tiwari PDF
IN THE COURT OF SH.SANJEEV AGGARWAL: SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI03 (PC ACT): CENTRAL DISTRICT: DELHI
RC No.33(A)/2016
CBI/ACB/ND
CBI Vs. Vishal Mehan & Ors.
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION:
.IN
AW
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the bail application filed
EL
on behalf of A2 Mrs.Rachna Tiwari Lakhanpal.
IV
was registered at CBI/ACB/Delhi on 28.09.2016 on the basis of a
W
RC No.33(A)/2016 13 of 13
13
3. It was also alleged that A1 had also demanded a bribe of
Rs.1 Lakh for submitting favourable report in the said Execution
Petition. The complainant has also paid an amount of Rs.15,000/
to A1 as Local Commissioners fee on 26.09.2016, as directed by
the above Court.
4. The said complaint was verified by Dy.SP, CBI/ACB/Delhi
.IN
on 27.09.2016 in the presence of independent witness including
AW
one witness from BSNL. The verification duly corroborated the
EL
facts mentioned in the complaint and the verification also revealed
that A1 Local Commissioner, has demanded a fresh bribe of
IV
.L
Rs.20 Lakhs on behalf of A2 Sr.Civil Judge for disposing off the
W
Lakhs for himself. Subsequent to this, A1 agreed to accept the
W
bribe of Rs. 5 Lakhs as part payment of total bribe of Rs.20 lakhs
from the complainant on behalf of A2 on 28.09.2016.
5. On the basis of said complaint and verification conducted
by Dy.SP, an FIR bearing RC No.3(A)/2016 was registered in this
case.
6. Thereafter, a trap was laid on 28.09.2016 and A1 was
caught red handed while accepting bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs
from the complainant as first installment in the presence of
RC No.33(A)/2016 13 of 13
13
7. It is further alleged that on being asked, A1 stated that he
had demanded and accepted the bribe on behalf of A2 and he
was about to call Sh.Alok Lakhanpal (hereinafter A3), husband of
A2. He voluntarily offered that he will pass on the bribe amount of
.IN
Rs.5 Lakhs to A3 or A2 on 28.09.2016 itself.
AW
EL
to meet her on that day only.
W
A2 had seen the said message. Thereafter, A1 made a
W
call to A3, but his mobile was switched off.
W
RC No.33(A)/2016 13 of 13
13
independent witnesses.
10. Thereafter, A1 voluntarily offered to hand over the bribe
amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to A3 or A2, as he had collected the same
from the complainant for A2. Accordingly, it was decided to
proceed to the residence of A3 and A2 alongwith the said
accused and independent witnesses.
.IN
AW
11. Thereafter, the CBI team alongwith independent
EL
P.M, A1 went inside the house of above mentioned persons and
W
kept the DVR in switched on mode, which was given to him. After
W
10 minutes, he came out from the house of above persons and
W
informed that he had handed over the bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs,
received from the complainant to A3 in the presence of A2. He
also stated that after receiving the said bribe amount of Rs. 5
Lakhs, A3 returned Rs.1 Lakh to him and kept the remaining Rs.4
Lakhs with him in a orange coloured plastic bag. The said Rs.1
Lakh was recovered from A1 in the presence of both the
independent witnesses.
12. Thereafter, all the members of the CBI team rushed to the
RC No.33(A)/2016 13 of 13
13
residence i.e. flat of A2 and rang the door bell, after some time,
the door was opened and both A3 and A2 were found inside the
house and they were asked to hand over the bribe amount, but
they did not cooperate.
13. Thereafter, following the searches in the backyard of the
house, one orange coloured plastic bag containing Rs. 4 Lakhs
.IN
was recovered in the presence of independent witnesses.
AW
EL
turned into pink colour.
W
W
15. Thereafter, further searches were made in the premises
W
of the above accused persons and huge amount of cash of Rs.94
Lakhs was recovered. It was also alleged that the message box of
mobile of A3 revealed that he was working as a tout for collecting
huge amount of money from various persons in lieu of delivering
favourable judgments from his wife i.e. A2.
16. I have heard Ld. Counsel for A2 Sh.Vikas Pahwa, Sr.
Advocate and Sh.Amit Bajaj as well as Sh.Naveen K.Giri and
Sh.A.K.Kushwaha, Ld.Public Prosecutors for CBI and perused the
RC No.33(A)/2016 13 of 13
13
record.
17. It has been argued by Ld. Senior Counsel for A2, that
there was no initial demand nor there was any demand at the time
of actual trap flowing from A2 nor there is any acceptance on
behalf of A2. He has also argued that A2, as per the case of
prosecution, had neither contacted the complainant nor (A1)
.IN
Vishal Mehan, Local Commissioner. Therefore, he has argued that
AW
Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 are not made
out in the present case. He has also argued that in the present
EL
case benefit of proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C be extended to A2,
IV
as A2 is a female having two minor children, aged 9 years and 7
.L
W
child is studying in first class and there is no one to look after them,
W
as her husband i.e. A3 is also under incarceration. He has also
argued that the mother of A2 is seriously sick, having to undergo
dialysis on regular basis. He has also argued that entire court
record of A2 has been sealed, therefore there are no chances of
tampering with evidence, nor there are chances of A2 fleeing from
justice. Therefore, he has argued that it is a fit case where bail
should be extended to A2. In support of his contention(s) he has
relied upon following judgments:
(I) 2003(70) DRJ 327 titled as Shameet Mukherjee Vs. CBI
RC No.33(A)/2016 13 of 13
13
(ii) 1986(23) ACC 10 titled as Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh.
(iii) 2016 SCC Online Del. 4533 titled as Nisha Arya Vs. The
State(NCT of Delhi)
.IN
though there may be no direct demand on behalf of A2, but the
AW
entire facts presented before the Court clearly demonstrates
EL
demand flowing from A2, A1 was only acting on behalf of A2 as
a conduit or agent to extract money. In any case, A1 was not in a
IV
position to give any favour to the complainant, it was only A2 who
.L
W
was in a position to give favour to the complainant by passing a
W
favourable judgment with regard to the case of the complainant,
W
which was pending before A2. He has also argued that it is not
necessary that to make out Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 a public
servant should directly accept the bribe money. Said bribe money
can be accepted either by himself or through any other person on
his behalf and Section 7 of PC Act is even otherwise attracted
where a public servant agrees to accept the said bribe money. He
has also argued that investigations are at a very initial stage and
considering the fact that the entire judicial institution has been
defamed, it is a fit case where bail should not be granted to A2 nor
RC No.33(A)/2016 13 of 13
13
19. I have gone through the rival contentions.
.IN
20. The considerations, which the Court should take into
AW
account while granting or rejecting the bail are laid down in the
EL
following judgment(s):
(1)
IV
Ors. Vs State (Delhi Administration) as under:
W
W
RC No.33(A)/2016 13 of 13
13
(2) It has also been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
.IN
para no.9 of judgment AIR 1984 SC 1503(1) The State
AW
(Through Deputy Commr. Of Police Special Branch, Delhi)
EL
Vs Jaspal Singh Gill as under:
IV
RC No.33(A)/2016 13 of 13
13
(3) It has also been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
para no.7 of judgment 1990 Cri.L.J.788 State of Maharashtra
Vs Anand Chintaman Dighe as under:
.IN
7. There are no hard and fast rules regarding
grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be
AW
considered on its own merits. The matter
always calls for judicious exercise of
EL
21. In the present case, there is no initial demand made by A2
during the verification proceeding(s) nor there was any demand
flowing from A2 during the actual trap nor there is any recorded
conversation of A2 in this regard. As per the prosecution story, the
acceptance of bribe money was made by the husband of A2 i.e.
A3. Thirdly, regarding recovery of Rs.94 Lakhs from the house in
RC No.33(A)/2016 13 of 13
13
.IN
Section 437 Cr.P.C should be extended to A2 nor not, the Ld.
AW
Counsel for A2 has relied upon judgment Nisha Arya (Supra) in
which it was held as under:
EL
“Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is
IV
that both the applicants are female being married
.L
W
women having minor children to support and to
W
be looked after by them. They are undisputedly no
W
more required for their custodial interrogation and
appropriate conditions can always be imposed
upon them in order to allay the apprehension
raised on behalf of complainant. Out of the
offences charged in this case, all offences except
offences under Section 308/452 IPC are bailable in
nature. So far as, offence under Section 308 IPC is
concerned, it is informed to the Court that
complainant was discharged from the hospital on
RC No.33(A)/2016 13 of 13
13
23. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of
the present case and the fact that proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C is
even applicable in those cases punishable with death,
.IN
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 7 years or more i.e. cases
AW
which are very grave in nature, therefore there is no reason why it
should not be made applicable to the facts of the present case, as
EL
respectively, her husband A3 is also under incarceration, there is
.L
W
nobody to look after them, as admittedly the Investigating Agency
W
investigation qua A2 is complete and she is no more required for
further investigation. There is no apprehension of absconcion of A
2, as she belongs to respectable strata of society nor there are
any chance of tampering of evidence by her, as the entire records
pertaining to her Court have already been sealed.
24. In these facts and circumstances, without commenting
upon the merits of the present case at this stage, lest it should
effect trial later on, it is a fit case where accused should be
RC No.33(A)/2016 13 of 13
13
released on bail. Accordingly, (A2) Mrs. Rachna Tiwari Lakhanpal
is admitted to bail on execution of personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/ with one surety in the like amount. Application stands
disposed off.
Copy of this order be given dasti to the Ld. Counsel for
A2 and the prosecution, as prayed.
.IN
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
AW
ON 03.10.2016 (SANJEEV AGGARWAL)
Special Judge,
EL
CBI03(PC Act)
Delhi/03.10.2016
IV
.L
W
W
W
RC No.33(A)/2016 13 of 13