Rajasthan HC denies bail to ITAT member, advocate, and others in CBI bribery case

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a batch of bail applications filed by several accused, including a sitting judicial member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), advocate Rajendra Sisodiya, assistant Registrar in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kailash Chandra Meena and intermediaries, in a high-profile corruption case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The order was passed by Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali, who dismissed multiple connected bail applications, holding that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and that the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the conspiracy, and the manner in which public office was allegedly misused did not warrant grant of bail at this stage.

The bail pleas arose from FIR No. RC 030 2025 A 0015, registered by the CBI, Jaipur, for offences under Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The principal accused, S. Seethalakshmi, was at the relevant time posted as a Judicial Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The CBI alleged that she, in conspiracy with advocates and private persons, demanded and accepted illegal gratification for passing favourable orders in pending income tax appeals.

According to the prosecution, the alleged bribe was routed through advocates and intermediaries using hawala channels, and the conspiracy involved coordinated roles played by multiple accused. The investigation revealed alleged payment of substantial sums, including recovery of cash amounts during searches, which, according to the CBI, were linked to the illegal gratification demanded for judicial favour.

During the hearing, senior counsel appearing for the accused raised multiple grounds for bail, including alleged procedural violations, illegal arrest, absence of direct recovery from some of the accused, lack of sanction at the initial stage, and claims of false implication. It was also argued that certain accused were not caught red-handed and that recovery of cash alone could not establish the offence under Section 7 of the 1988 Act.

The defence further contended that the accused had cooperated with the investigation, that the charge-sheet was incomplete due to non-filing of relied-upon documents, and that default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC (now corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) was attracted.

The CBI, opposing the bail pleas, submitted that the case involved systemic corruption within a judicial institution, and that the evidence collected so far, including intercepted communications, financial trails, recoveries, and statements, clearly established a prima facie case. It was argued that the offence struck at the very foundation of public confidence in the justice delivery system and therefore deserved strict judicial scrutiny.

The prosecution emphasized that sanction for prosecution was either obtained or in the process of being obtained, and that the investigation was still ongoing with respect to certain accused and financial trails.

After examining the record in detail, the High Court held that at the stage of bail, a mini-trial was impermissible, and that the court was only required to assess whether a prima facie case existed. The Court observed that the allegations were grave in nature, involved abuse of a high public office, and disclosed a well-orchestrated conspiracy to obtain illegal gratification through intermediaries.

The Court rejected the contention that absence of direct recovery or non-red-handed arrest was sufficient to dilute the prosecution case at the bail stage. It held that offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act could be established through circumstantial evidence, financial linkages, and conspiracy, and not merely through trap proceedings.

On the issue of default bail, the Court held that the charge-sheet had been filed within the statutory period and that the mere non-supply of certain documents at that stage would not automatically entitle the accused to statutory bail.

In view of these findings, the Court dismissed all the connected bail applications, clarifying that the observations were limited to the bail stage and would not prejudice the trial on merits.