HC Grants Bail to Petitioner Accused of Cash Handling in Goa Elections Citing Weak Case and No Risk of Tampering Evidence

Case Details: Chanpreet Singh Rayat v. Enforcement Directorate - [2024] 167 taxmann.com 668 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
• Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Chirag Madan, Ms Ravleen Sabharwal, Rahul Agarwal & Ronit Bose, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Vivek Gurnani, Kartik Sabharwal, Ms Abhipriya Rai & Vivek Gaurav, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, FIR was registered by CBI for enquiry into matter for irregularities in framing and implementation of Excise Policy of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.

On basis of said FIR, respondent conducted an investigation, wherein it was found that concerned AAP leaders had channelled about 100 crore rupees through Hawala to Goa, to be used in Election Campaign in Assembly Elections.

The Allegation against petitioner was that he was one of key persons who received Rs. 45 crore in cash for further transfer and use in Election Campaign. Petitioner was closely associated with co-accused and was a cash handler on behalf of AAP in Goa Elections.

He distributed money to vendors, survey workers and volunteers etc. who were working for AAP campaign in Goa Elections. The Petitioner was, thus, arrested for offence under section 3.

High Court Held

It was noted that petitioner was working as a freelancer for various political parties and merely because he spent certain amount for campaigning events in election of Goa, it could not be said that there was a strong case against petitioner.

It was also noted that petitioner was having deep roots in society and there was no possibility of him fleeing away from country and not being available for facing trial. Regardless, conditions could be imposed to ensure petitioner’s attendance to face trial.

Further, there was no possibility of tampering of evidence by petitioner if petitioner was granted bail as case was primarily dependent on documentary evidence which was already seized by prosecution.

Similarly, apprehension regarding influencing witnesses and that of being a flight risk could be diffused by imposing stringent conditions while granting bail.

Since, conditions of triple test were duly satisfied by petitioner, the High Court held that he was to be released on bail subject to furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.5 lakh with one surety of like amount; to satisfaction of Special Judge/Trial Court.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Manish Sisodia (supra) (Para 86) followed.

• Santosh v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 714 (para 10),
• Selvi v. State of Karnataka (para 10),
• The Petitioner has referred to Ramesh Manglani v. ED 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3234 (para 17),
• petitioner, to be entitled to Bail for which reliance has been placed on Vijay Madan Lal v. Union of India 2022 SCC Online SC 929 (para 24),
• Manharibhai Muljhibhai Kakdia & Anr v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patal & Ors. 2012 10 SCC 517 (para 25),
• Reliance is also placed on Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 (para 26),
• Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (2015) 16 SCC 1 (para 26),
• prima facie grounds, for which reliance has been placed on Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004) 3 SCC 549 (para 27),
• Sunil Dahiya v. State Govt Of NCT of Delhi 2016 SCC Online Del 5566 (para 28),
• Pramod Kumar Saxena v. Union of India (2008) 9 SCC 685 (para 28), State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 364 (para 29),
• Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari (2019) 9 SCC 165 (para 29),
• Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466 (para 33), State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 751 (para 29),
• Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 (para 31), CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452 (para 33),
• Salim Khan v. Sanjai Singh (2002) 9 SCC 670 (para 33),
• prosecution cannot be considered at this stage for which reliance has been placed on Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhatisgarh (2007) 11 SCC 195 (para 61),
• case to establish that prima-facie offence has been committed. Reliance is placed on Manharibhai Mohanbhai Patel & Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors. (2012) 10 SCC 517 (para 66),
• Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsingh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 (para 67),
• Puran v. Rambilas and Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 338 (para 67),
• Lokesh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2008) 16 SCC 753 (para 67),
• Chaman Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 525 (para 67),
• State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Popat Vetal and Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 521 (para 67),
• Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135 (para 67),
• State of Bihar and Another v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751 (para 68)
• Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 (para 82).