A Delhi court has granted bail to a CBI official accused of stealing Rs 1 lakh during a search operation at the residence of a private person.
In the bail order dated June 25, Special Judge Chhavi Kapoor noted that the investigation had been completed, all material witnesses had been examined and the alleged stolen amount had already been recovered.
The court also observed that all essential electronic evidence had been seized and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis, while the statement of an independent public witness had been recorded.
According to the prosecution, the accused, who was a member of a CBI search team during a raid on the premises of a private person, allegedly stole Rs 1 lakh and later hid it under the mat of a vehicle.
The prosecution claimed that an independent public witness saw the accused hiding the money. It further alleged that the accused admitted his guilt before other CBI officials following the recovery.
While granting bail, the court observed that no further custodial interrogation was required as the material aspects of the investigation had been completed. It also noted that the accused had been serving as a public servant in the CBI for several years and was not considered a flight risk. The court then granted him bail on a personal bond and surety bond of Rs 50,000 each. Other conditions of the bail included the accused not leaving the Delhi-NCR area, not tampering with evidence or contacting witnesses, depositing his passport with the court and joining the probe when required.
Ex-GST officer gets bail
In another case, a Delhi court granted bail to former GST officer Ajit Singh, who is accused of facilitating the fraudulent release of GST refunds amounting to nearly Rs 5.50 crore, allegedly causing significant loss to the government exchequer.
Special Judge Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani heard Singh’s bail application in a case registered by the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB).
According to the prosecution, Singh, while serving as a GST officer, allegedly issued 61 refund orders between March and August 2023 in violation of the statutory provisions and departmental safeguards.
The prosecution alleged that departmental scrutiny uncovered serious irregularities, including sanctioning refunds without proper verification, absence of mandatory financial checks, reliance on fabricated or computer-generated invoices, failure to verify business premises, processing refund claims within seven to 10 days instead of the prescribed 60-day period and approving claims despite frequent changes in business addresses without adequate scrutiny.
