Bribery case: Bombay HC sets aside spl court’s bail to 3, including CGST officials

The trio were arrested by the CBI, a day before they got the bail from the Thane court on August 28, which was subsequently challenged by the agency in the high court

Allowing a criminal revision application from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Bombay High Court (HC) on Wednesday quashed and set aside a Thane special court’s order, which granted bail to three people in an alleged ₹40 lakh bribery case after holding their arrests to be “illegal” on grounds that the procedure prescribed by law had not been followed.

The CBI’s anti-corruption branch, Mumbai, had registered a case on August 26 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. (Representative file photo)

While the high court remanded the three accused to CBI’s custody for two days, the agency could not trace one of them, the CGST additional commissioner.

The high court’s order remanded the three accused persons, Vinay Kantheti, additional commissioner (GST), CGST Raigad; Rakesh Sinha, superintendent (GST), CGST Raigad; and another person Narinder Rajput, to two days’ CBI custody. The high court, after examining the record, found that “the grounds of arrest had been communicated and that the relevant family members and advocates had been informed”, CBI officials said.

The trio were arrested by the CBI, a day before they got the bail from the Thane court on August 28, which was subsequently challenged by the agency in the high court.

Pursuant to the high court’s order, Sinha and Rajput were taken into CBI’s custody for their custodial interrogation, officials said. The CBI’s case officials however allegedly could not trace Kantheti on Wednesday after the high court’s order, officials said.

“Efforts are being made to trace and apprehend Vinay Kumar Kantheti, additional commissioner, CGST, in accordance with law. Investigation in the case continues,” an official said.

The CBI’s anti-corruption branch, Mumbai, had registered a case on August 26 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, based on a complaint alleging demand of illegal gratification by Sinha. It was alleged that an illegal gratification of ₹1.50 crore, subsequently reduced to ₹40 lakh, was demanded in connection with the proceedings relating to the complainant’s a stone-quarrying firm.

Acting on the complaint, the CBI laid a trap on August 27, during which Rajput, a private person (Customs House Agent) was apprehended while allegedly accepting ₹40 lakh on behalf of Sinha and Kantheti. Kantheti is a 2009-batch Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer.

As part of the case probe, the CBI arrested Sinha, Rajput and Kantheti on August 27 and August 28, and produced them before a Thane special court for remand on August 28.

The CBI had sought five days’ police custody of the accused persons for custodial interrogation but the special court had rejected CBI’s request for the custody of the accused persons, held the arrests to be “illegal” and released the accused persons on bail.

The Thane special court, while rejecting the CBI’s remand application, had questioned the manner in which the arrests were documented and carried out. The court had held that the law requires the accused to be informed in writing of the grounds and reasons for arrest, and granted them bail.