The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to middleman Kuldeep accused of handing over bribe to public servants for import-export clearances at Inland Container Depot in Delhi (ICD).
The bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia has gone through the transcripts of audio recordings of conversation between the accused/applicant and some unknown person, which prima facie show his complicity in the crime. The custodial investigation is necessary in order to ascertain the identity of the person with whom the accused/applicant was talking, as depicted in the audio recordings and further, even a voice sample of the accused is required to be taken. Besides, the explanation advanced on behalf of the accused for his not handing over his mobile phone to the Investigating Officer prima facie fails to inspire confidence.
On the basis of information, CBI carried out a raid in the premises of Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad in which two public servants and three non-public servants were arrested on the spot. The accused/applicant, who is a non-public servant, fled the spot. The role ascribed to the accused/applicant is that he was working as a tout for handing over bribes to the public servants for clearance of import-export consignments at ICD.
The accused/applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case for offence under Section 61(2) of BNS and Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The applicant contended that no specific role has been assigned to the accused/applicant in the RC registered by CBI. The accused/applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
The CBI submitted that the accused/applicant has been specifically named in the RC and his role as a tout is clearly depicted in the audio recordings, as his phone was lawfully tapped. It is also submitted by learned SPP that the accused/applicant recovered a cash sum of Rs. 19,00,000 from his premises. IThe accused/applicant has not handed over his mobile phone to the Investigating Officer despite being called upon.
The applicant contended that the cash amount recovered from his residence was the amount of chit fund committees operated by his father and also the loan amount which his father used to advance to his clients. As regards the mobile phone of the accused/applicant, it is contended that the same got misplaced and since it was not in a working condition, the accused/applicant did not get any police complaint lodged.
The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Case Details
Case Title: Kuldeep Versus CBI
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 3886/2024 & CRL.M.A. 32117/2024 (stay)
Date: 23.04.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Anjani Kumar Rai
Counsel For Respondent: Anubha Bhardwaj
