Read Time: 09 minutes
While granting bail, the court pointed out that the electronic data as well as all devices including laptops and mobiles had already been seized by the CBI. Moreover, court observed that the accused had his family and roots in society and did not have any prior criminal antecedents.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted bail to son of a former Chief Managing Director (CMD) of Water and Power Consultancy Services (WAPCOS), India Limited in a corruption case.
The vacation bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju granted bail to Gaurav Singhal on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1 lakh and surety of like amount.
“It is settled law that the bail should not normally be withheld, if after taking other factors into consideration, an accused is entitled to bail”, the court said.
The court noted that the electronic data as well as all devices including laptops and mobiles had already been seized by the CBI and said that Singhal had his family and roots in society and did not have any prior criminal antecedents.
“Documents relating to investments/purchase of various movable/immovable assets, keys of 8 bank lockers in the name of the accused persons and various digital devices and storage media, etc. seized during searches on 02.05.2023 and during the investigation are also available with the Respondent as is reflected in the Status Report filed by the Respondent on 13.06.2023”, the court further noted.
On April 30 this year, an FIR was registered by the CBI against Singhal for commission of offences of abetment and corruption under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was filed on the basis of the information received against one Rajinder Kumar Gupta (father of the petitioner), his mother, and his wife.
The allegation against Singhal was that he abetted the co-accused Shri Rajinder Kumar Gupta (his father) who, while working as the then Chairman and Managing Director [CMD], Water and Power Consultancy Services (India) Limited, during the check period April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2019, committed “criminal misconduct” and acquired assets disproportionate to his legal sources of income to the tune of 131.92% and enriched himself illicitly in active connivance with his family members including Singhal.
Gaurav Singhal was detained by the CBI on May 2 and was remanded to custody for 10 days. Thereafter, on May 12, he was sent to judicial custody.
Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur appearing for Singhal contended that during the search, all materials such as documents pertaining to his bank’s lockers with keys, property papers, and all digital devices belonging to him and his family were seized by CBI. It was argued that his arrest was “illegal” and bad in law, in as much as the arrest was in blatant violation of procedure as set forth under Section 41 A of the CrPC.
The senior counsel submitted that it is trite law, that the petitioner should not be arrested without any preliminary enquiry before the registration of FIR. “The Petitioner/Applicant is being detained unlawfully based on transactions that took place from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2019 while the FIR was filed on 30.04.2023. It is submitted that the allegation of abetment is qua the period almost 3 years after the retirement of the Petitioner/Applicants father from WAPCOS”, the senior counsel argued.
It was further argued that the stringent provisions of the PC Act had been wrongly invoked against Singhal who was neither a public servant nor involved with any public/government body and that he was employed as Deputy General Manager with Maruti Suzuki Ltd. for the last several years and that his continued incarceration was adversely affecting his professional career.
On the contrary, the counsel for CBI contended that Singhal had been implicated in an economic offense. Wherein substantial sums of monies including Rs.38,38,79,700 in cash, had been confiscated from his premises. “Several crores in cash and foreign currency have been confiscated from the premises of the family members of the Petitioner/Applicant”, he added.
It was argued that Singhal had not disclosed any legitimate source from where he had purchased high-end properties located in posh localities and other movable assets. The SPP also argued that Singhal did not disclose the exact number of locations of lockers owned by them in different banks and one of the lockers situated in Indian Bank was operated by Reema Singhal, (his mother) during the investigation. Furthermore, it was argued that Singhal had tampered with the prosecution evidence and had been non-cooperative.
Case Title: Gaurav Singal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Please Login or Register
