S.17A PC Act | If Information About More Offenders Is Found During Trap Proceeding, CBI Can't Be Rendered Helpless In Continuing Probe: Delhi HC

In doing so, Justice Shalinder Kaur debunked the petitioner's contention that the CBI had not obtained sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in order to prosecute him.

The single bench observed, “Undoubtedly, allegations of corruption must be dealt with zero tolerance. When, during a trap proceeding, further information is received about the offence/offenders, the CBI cannot be rendered helpless in proceeding with further investigations.”

It relied on CBI vs Santosh Karnani (2023) where the Supreme Court held that proviso to Section 17A refers to cases wherein a public servant is charged with acceptance of an undue advantage or attempt thereof. A prior approval or sanction to investigate such an officer in a trap case is likely to defeat the very purpose of trap and the investigation, which is not the underlying intention of the legislature.

In the case at hand, Petitioner was stated to be involved in a large-scale bribery scandal in conspiracy with the other co-accused persons, and actively facilitating the collection of bribe amounts from railway contractors. These bribes were allegedly exchanged for favourable clearance of work orders and payments to the contractors.

The prosecution was launched after CBI laid trap proceedings against co-accused based on a tip. Though the Petitioner was not apprehended at the scene, CBI raided Petitioner's premises and seized ₹7,85,000 cash and gold worth ₹43.06 lacs.

Petitioner contended that he was not issued a single notice asking him to join the investigation, which per se, indicates that his presence is not necessary. Further, no sanction to prosecute him was obtained under Section 17A.

The Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand drew the Court's attention to the Petitioner's conduct in not joining the investigation despite being made aware of it, asking his brother to obstruct the CBI raid and accessing his bank locker the very next day of the raid.

The prosecution thus contended that petitioner is the nodal person for the collection of bribes from contractors and his custodial investigation is required to unearth a large criminal conspiracy and the role of other individuals in alleged corruption in issuance of various Tenders by the Railways Department.

Furthermore, the SPP submitted that the present matter pertains to a trap case, and in such cases, the statutory requirement of prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act, is not attracted.

After hearing both sides, the High Court agreed that Petitioner's conduct shows mala fides on his part. It observed,

“In the present case, the manner in which the petitioner, despite having knowledge of the raid being conducted at his premises, evaded participation in the investigation and rather gave instructions to prevent the raid and for disappearance of evidence, and also operated his bank locker the very next day, shows the petitioner‟s mala fides…More so, when it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that a raid was conducted at his premises, it was imperative upon him not to operate the bank locker.”

In view of the above, the Court declined pre-arrest bail.

Appearance: Ms. Nandita Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sheezan Hashmi, Mr. Akshat Kumar, Mr. Sirhaan Seth, Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Mr. Adesh Kumar Choudhary, Mr. Shubham Raj Anand and Mr. Amit Peswani, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Ravi Sharma, SPP with Mr. Swapnil Choudhary, Mr. Ishann Bhardwaj & Mr. Shivam Prasad, Advs. for Respondent

Case title: Arun Kumar Jindal v. CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 535

Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 1705/2025

Click here to read order