Gujarat HC Declines Pre-Arrest Bail To Two Accused Of Paying ₹15 Lakhs Bribe To NHAI Chief GM

The Gujarat High Court has declined anticipatory bail to the Managing Directors of two private companies, accused of bribing a “very senior officer” of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

The Bench comprising Justice Nikhil Kariel observed that grant of anticipatory bail may impact a large number of people, more particularly since the accused allegedly bribed the incharge of an organization which has a “very serious responsibility” of building and maintaining important highways within the State.

The bench further concluded that custodial interrogation is necessity in the instant case for qualitative elicitation.

The Bench had clubbed the applications of the MDs of M/s GHV India India Pvt Ltd and M/s New India Contractors Pvt Ltd who were seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with the FIR registered for offences u/s 120-B of IPC, 7, 7A & 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was registered in light of the Chief General Manager (Tech) and Regional Officer’s (NHAI Gujarat) involvement in ‘corrupt and illegal activities.’

It was submitted by the MD of GHV India that his employee had paid an amount of INR 10 lacs to the NHAI officer and the same had been recovered by the authorities. However, there was no evidence that such an amount was paid at his instance. The Applicant averred that vicariously imposed criminal liability will not be attracted since the concerned employee was acting as an agent of the public servant.

The MD of M/s New India Contractors averred that custodial interrogation was not necessary since the Applicant was ready to cooperate with the investigation. Further, the employee of the Applicant who had given Rs. 5 lacs as bribe and the public servant had been arrested. Hence, there would be no hindrance to the investigation,

Per contra, the Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the nature of offences and the role attributed to the Applicants did not merit pre-arrest bail. Additionally, there were 5 different envelopes containing currency notes worth INR 2.8 lacs with a hand-written chit showing that the amounts were delivered to officials in NHAI. The envelopes were recovered from the laptop bag of the employee. Further, the brother of the Applicant in the first Misc. Application had also told the Applicant that certain amounts had been handed to the public servant over Whatsapp. The Applicant responded ‘ok’ to this message.

Per the CBI, there was sufficient prima facie material to show the involvement of the Applicants, particularly since they were MDs of the Companies which were executing these projects. Their release would hamper free, fair and full investigation especially due to their positions.

The Single Judge Bench considered the following factors while declining bail:

1. The Applicants were MDs of the Companies. One of the employees had collected amounts from the other companies, as well, to the tune of INR 10 lacs and INR 2.5 lacs.
2. The amount of bribe was given under the instructions of the Applicant working with GHV, per the Accused employee.
3. The message about the amount being delivered was acknowledged by the MD of M/S New India Contractors.
4. There was prima facie material to show active involvement of the Applicants in the offence and this was relevant while deciding an application u/s 438 of CrPC.
5. Significantly, the Single Judge Bench highlighted the aspect that there should be ‘no harm’ in granting anticipatory bail if an Accused is arrested, while determining such applications.
6. The High Court also emphasised that the nature and gravity of the offences alleged was quite serious, particularly since a senior officer of the NHAI was involved. Even though there was little apprehension about the Applicants fleeing from justice, the possibility of repeating such offences could not be ruled out. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court’s judgement in State Rep. By the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma where it was held that in case of influential persons facing charges of commission of offence punishable under the PC Act, custodial interrogation would become a mere ritual if such persons were granted pre-arrest bail.

Keeping in view these aspects, the High Court declined to release the Applicants on pre-arrest bail.