­13­

IN THE COURT OF SH.SANJEEV AGGARWAL: SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI­03 (PC ACT): CENTRAL DISTRICT: DELHI 

RC No.33(A)/2016
CBI/ACB/ND
CBI Vs. Vishal Mehan & Ors. 

ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION:­

.IN
AW
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the bail application filed
EL

on behalf of A­2 Mrs.Rachna Tiwari Lakhanpal.
IV

2. In   brief,   the   prosecution   case   is,   that   the   present   case

.L
W

was registered at CBI/ACB/Delhi on 28.09.2016 on the basis of a
W

written   complaint   dated   27.09.2016   lodged   by   complainant

W

Sh.Ashok   Kumar   Ohri,   wherein   it   was   alleged   that   Sh.   Vishal

Mehan (Advocate) (hereinafter A­1) , Local Commissioner, Court
no.350, in the court of Mrs. Rachna Tiwari Lakhanpal (hereinafter
A­2),   Sr.   Civil   Judge,   Tis   Hazari   Courts,   Delhi,   was   demanding
bribe   of   Rs.10   Lakhs   on   behalf   of   above   Sr.   Civil   Judge   for
disposing off an Execution Petition bearing No.80/2011 in favour of
the complainant, which was pending disposal before the said Court
of Ld. Sr. Civil Judge.

  RC No.33(A)/2016                                                             13 of 13   
 ­13­

3. It was also alleged that A­1 had also demanded a bribe of
Rs.1 Lakh for submitting favourable report in the said Execution
Petition.  The complainant has also paid an amount of Rs.15,000/­
to A­1 as Local Commissioners fee on 26.09.2016, as directed by
the above Court.

4. The said complaint was verified by Dy.SP, CBI/ACB/Delhi

.IN
on 27.09.2016 in  the presence of independent witness including
AW
one   witness   from   BSNL.     The   verification   duly   corroborated   the
EL

facts mentioned in the complaint and the verification also revealed
that   A­1   Local   Commissioner,   has   demanded   a   fresh   bribe   of
IV
.L

Rs.20 Lakhs on behalf of A­2 Sr.Civil Judge for disposing off the
W

above   Execution   Petition   in   favour   of  the  complainant   and  Rs.2

W

Lakhs for himself.   Subsequent to this, A­1 agreed to accept the
W

bribe of Rs. 5 Lakhs as part payment of total bribe of Rs.20 lakhs
from the complainant on behalf of A­2 on 28.09.2016.

5. On the basis of said complaint and verification conducted
by Dy.SP, an FIR bearing RC No.3(A)/2016 was registered in this
case. 
6. Thereafter, a trap was laid on 28.09.2016 and A­1 was
caught  red   handed   while accepting bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs
from   the   complainant   as   first   installment   in   the   presence   of

  RC No.33(A)/2016                                                             13 of 13   
 ­13­

independent   witnesses   on   behalf   of   (A­2)   and   the   said   bribe

amount was recovered from his possession on 28.09.2016 itself.

7. It is further alleged that on being asked, A­1 stated that he
had demanded and accepted the bribe on behalf of A­2 and he
was about to call Sh.Alok Lakhanpal (hereinafter A­3), husband of
A­2.  He voluntarily offered that he will pass on the bribe amount of

.IN
Rs.5 Lakhs to A­3 or A­2 on 28.09.2016 itself.
AW
EL

8. He   further   sent   a   whatsap   message   to   A­2   mentioning

that he had received the said amount of Rs.5 Lakhs and he wanted
IV
.L

to meet her on that day only.
W

A­2 had seen the said message.  Thereafter, A­1 made a
W

call to A­3, but his mobile was switched off.  
W

9. Thereafter,   on   the   mobile   phone   of   A­1,   a   call   was

received   from   the   mobile   phone   of   A­3,   which   was   being
simultaneously   recorded   through   a   DVR.     In   the   said   call,   A­3
asked   A­1   to   meet   him   either   at   Daryaganj  or   at  his  residence.
Thereafter, A­1 made a subsequent call on the mobile phone of
accused A­3 at around 9.05 P.M and reconfirmed about the place
of meeting. This time A­3 asked A­1 to come to his residence.  This
call   was   also   recorded   through   DVR   in   the   presence   of

  RC No.33(A)/2016                                                             13 of 13   
 ­13­

independent witnesses.

10. Thereafter, A­1 voluntarily offered to hand over the bribe
amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to A­3 or A­2, as he had collected the same
from   the   complainant   for   A­2.     Accordingly,   it   was   decided   to
proceed   to   the   residence   of   A­3   and   A­2   alongwith   the   said
accused and independent witnesses.

.IN
AW
11. Thereafter,   the   CBI   team   alongwith   independent
EL

witnesses,   complainant   and   his   partner   and   A­1   reached   at   the

residence of A­2 and A­3 at about 10.15 P.M.   At around 10.21
IV
.L

P.M, A­1 went inside the house of above mentioned persons and
W

kept the DVR in switched on mode, which was given to him.  After
W

10 minutes, he came out from the house of above persons and
W

informed that he had handed over the bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs,
received from the complainant to A­3 in the presence of A­2.  He
also   stated   that   after   receiving   the   said   bribe   amount   of   Rs.   5
Lakhs, A­3 returned Rs.1 Lakh to him and kept the remaining Rs.4
Lakhs with him in a orange coloured plastic bag.   The said Rs.1
Lakh   was   recovered   from   A­1   in   the   presence   of   both   the
independent witnesses.

12. Thereafter, all the members of the CBI team rushed to the

  RC No.33(A)/2016                                                             13 of 13   
 ­13­

residence i.e. flat of A­2 and rang the door bell, after some time,
the door was opened and both A­3 and A­2 were found inside the
house and they were asked to hand over the bribe amount, but
they did not co­operate.

13. Thereafter, following the searches in the backyard of the
house,   one   orange   coloured  plastic  bag  containing  Rs.  4  Lakhs

.IN
was recovered in the presence of independent witnesses.
AW
EL

14. Thereafter,   hand   washes   of   both   the   accused   persons

were obtained in a colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate which
IV
.L

turned into pink colour.
W
W

15. Thereafter, further searches were made in the premises
W

of the above accused persons and huge amount of cash of Rs.94
Lakhs was recovered.  It was also alleged that the message box of
mobile of A­3 revealed that he was working as a tout for collecting
huge amount of money from various persons in lieu of delivering
favourable judgments from his wife i.e. A­2.

16. I   have   heard  Ld.  Counsel  for  A­2  Sh.Vikas  Pahwa,  Sr.
Advocate   and   Sh.Amit   Bajaj   as   well   as   Sh.Naveen   K.Giri   and
Sh.A.K.Kushwaha, Ld.Public Prosecutors for CBI and perused the

  RC No.33(A)/2016                                                             13 of 13   
 ­13­

record.

17. It has been argued by Ld. Senior Counsel for A­2, that
there was no initial demand nor there was any demand at the time
of   actual   trap   flowing   from   A­2   nor   there   is   any   acceptance   on
behalf of A­2.   He has also argued that A­2, as per the case of
prosecution,   had   neither   contacted   the   complainant   nor   (A­1)

.IN
Vishal Mehan, Local Commissioner.  Therefore, he has argued that
AW
Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 are not made
out in the present case.   He has also argued that in the present
EL

case benefit of proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C be extended to A­2,
IV

as A­2 is a female having two minor children, aged 9 years and 7
.L
W

years respectively, one of them is studying in 3 rd  class and other

W

child is studying in first class and there is no one to look after them,
W

as her husband i.e. A­3 is also under incarceration.   He has also
argued that the mother of A­2 is seriously sick, having to undergo
dialysis   on   regular   basis.     He   has   also   argued  that   entire   court
record of A­2 has been sealed, therefore there are no chances of
tampering with evidence, nor there are chances of A­2 fleeing from
justice. Therefore, he has argued that it is a fit case where bail
should be extended to A­2.  In support of his contention(s) he has
relied upon following judgments:­
(I) 2003(70) DRJ 327 titled as Shameet Mukherjee Vs. CBI

  RC No.33(A)/2016                                                             13 of 13   
 ­13­

(ii)      1986(23) ACC 10 titled as Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. State  
of  Uttar Pradesh.
(iii) 2016 SCC Online Del. 4533 titled as Nisha Arya Vs. The  
State(NCT of Delhi)

18. On   the   other   hand,   Ld.Public   Prosecutor   for   CBI   has

strongly  opposed  the bail application of A­2 on the ground that,

.IN
though there may be no direct demand on behalf of A­2, but the
AW
entire   facts   presented   before   the   Court   clearly   demonstrates
EL

demand flowing from A­2, A­1 was only acting on behalf of A­2 as
a conduit or agent to extract money.  In any case, A­1 was not in a
IV

position to give any favour to the complainant, it was only A­2 who
.L
W

was in a position to give favour to the complainant by passing a
W

favourable judgment with regard to the case of the complainant,
W

which was pending before A­2.   He has also argued that it is not
necessary that  to  make out Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 a public
servant should directly accept the bribe money.  Said bribe money
can be accepted either by himself or through any other person on
his   behalf   and   Section   7  of   PC   Act   is   even   otherwise   attracted
where a public servant agrees to accept the said bribe money.  He
has also argued that investigations are at a very initial stage and
considering   the   fact   that   the   entire   judicial   institution   has   been
defamed, it is a fit case where bail should not be granted to A­2 nor

  RC No.33(A)/2016                                                             13 of 13   
 ­13­

proviso   to   Section   437   Cr.P.C   is   applicable   to   the   facts   of   the

present case considering the gravity of the offence(s) for which she
has been booked.   He has also argued that huge amount of 94
lakhs was recovered from the house search of A­2. 

19. I have gone through the rival contentions.

.IN
20. The   considerations,   which   the   Court   should   take   into
AW
account while  granting or  rejecting the bail are laid down in  the
EL

following judgment(s):­
(1)
IV

It   has   been   held   by   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in   para

.L

no.24   of   judgment  AIR   1978   SC   179(1)   Gurcharan   Singh   &

W

Ors. Vs State (Delhi Administration) as under:­
W
W

24. The overriding considerations in granting

bail to which we adverted to earlier and
which are common both in the case of
S.437(1) and S.439(1) Cr.P.C of the new code
are the nature and gravity of the
circumstances in which the offence is
committed; the position and the status of the
accused with reference to the victim and the
witnesses; the likelihood, of the accused
fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence,
of jeopardising his own life being faced with

  RC No.33(A)/2016                                                             13 of 13   
 ­13­

a grim prospect of possible conviction in the

case; of tampering with witnesses; the
history of the case as well as of its
investigation and other relevant grounds
which, in view of so many variable factors,
cannot be exhaustively set out.

(2) It has also been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

.IN
para   no.9   of   judgment  AIR   1984   SC   1503(1)   The   State
AW
(Through Deputy Commr. Of Police Special Branch, Delhi)
EL

Vs Jaspal Singh Gill  as under:­
IV

9. I have also gone through the decision of

.L

this Court in Gurcharan Singh Vs State (Delhi

W

Administration), (1978) 2 SCR 358: (AIR 1978

W

SC 179) and Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs Public

Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
W

(1978) 2 SCR 371: (AIR 1978 SC 429) which

deal with the principles governing the grant
of bail. It may be mentioned here that in the
last of the above cases, the accused had
been acquitted by the trial Court but
convicted by the High Court on appeal. On a
consideration of the above three decisions, I
am of the view that the Court before granting
bail in cases involving non-bailable offences
particularly where the trial has not yet
commenced should take into consideration
various matters such as the nature and
seriousness of the offence, the character of
the evidence, circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused, a reasonable
possibility of the presence of the accused not

  RC No.33(A)/2016                                                             13 of 13   
 ­13­

being secured at the trial, reasonable

apprehension of witnesses being tampered
with, the larger interests of the public or the
State and similar other considerations.

(3) It has also been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
para no.7 of judgment  1990 Cri.L.J.788 State of Maharashtra
Vs Anand Chintaman Dighe as under:­

.IN
7. There are no hard and fast rules regarding
grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be
AW
considered on its own merits. The matter
always calls for judicious exercise of
EL

discretion by the Court. Where the offence is

of serious nature the Court has to decide the
IV

question on grant of bail in the light of such

considerations as the nature and seriousness
.L

of offence, character of the evidence,

W

circumstances which are peculiar to the

accused, a reasonable possibility of presence
W

of the accused not being secured at the trial

W

and the reasonable apprehension of witness

being tampered with, the larger interest of
the public or such similar other
considerations.

21. In the present case, there is no initial demand made by A­2
during   the   verification   proceeding(s)   nor   there   was   any   demand
flowing from A­2 during the actual trap nor there is any recorded
conversation of A­2 in this regard. As per the prosecution story, the
acceptance of bribe money was made by the husband of A­2 i.e.
A­3.  Thirdly, regarding recovery of Rs.94 Lakhs from the house in

  RC No.33(A)/2016                                                             13 of 13   
 ­13­

possession   of   A­2,   admittedly   the   said   house   was   in   joint

possession   of   A­2   and   her  husband   A­3,   as   A­3   is   a  practicing
Advocate, the source to whom the said money belongs, is a matter
of investigation and trial.  This amount of Rs.94 Lakhs in any case,
does not pertain to the present trap case.

22. Regarding   the   fact,   whether   benefit   of   proviso   to

.IN
Section   437 Cr.P.C should be extended to A­2 nor not, the Ld.
AW
Counsel for A­2 has relied upon judgment Nisha Arya (Supra) in
which it was held as under:­
EL

“Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is
IV

that both the applicants are female being married
.L
W

women having minor children to support and to
W

be looked after by them. They are undisputedly no
W

more required for their custodial interrogation and
appropriate   conditions   can   always   be   imposed
upon   them   in   order   to   allay   the   apprehension
raised   on   behalf   of   complainant.   Out   of   the
offences charged in this case, all offences except
offences under Section 308/452 IPC are bailable in
nature. So far as, offence under Section 308 IPC is
concerned,   it   is   informed   to   the   Court   that
complainant was discharged from the hospital on

  RC No.33(A)/2016                                                             13 of 13   
 ­13­

the   same   day.   Trial   may   take   considerable   time

and thus, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping the applicants behind the bars. 

23. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of
the present case and the fact that proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C is
even   applicable   in   those   cases   punishable   with   death,

.IN
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 7 years or more i.e. cases
AW
which are very grave in nature, therefore there is no reason why it
should not be made applicable to the facts of the present case, as
EL

A­2   is  a  female   having two minor children, aged 7 and 9 years

IV

respectively, her husband A­3 is also under incarceration, there is
.L
W

nobody to look after them, as admittedly the Investigating Agency
W

had   not   sought   any   police   custody   remand   of   A­2,   therefore

W

investigation qua A­2 is complete and she is no more required for
further investigation. There is no apprehension of absconcion of A­
2,   as she belongs to respectable strata of society nor there are
any chance of tampering of evidence by her, as the entire records
pertaining to her Court have already been sealed.

24. In these facts and circumstances, without commenting
upon  the  merits of  the present case at this stage, lest it should
effect   trial   later   on,   it   is   a   fit   case   where   accused   should   be

  RC No.33(A)/2016                                                             13 of 13   
 ­13­

released on bail.  Accordingly, (A­2) Mrs. Rachna Tiwari Lakhanpal
is admitted  to  bail on execution of personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/­ with one surety in the like amount.  Application stands
disposed off. 
Copy of this order be given dasti to the Ld. Counsel for
A­2 and the prosecution, as prayed.

.IN
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
AW
ON 03.10.2016 (SANJEEV AGGARWAL)
Special Judge, 
EL

CBI­03(PC Act)
Delhi/03.10.2016
IV
.L
W
W
W

  RC No.33(A)/2016                                                             13 of 13