VIJAY SINGH SOHI vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION / ACB. JAMMU
- Court
- Jammu and Kashmir High Court
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No. 171/2026
Reserved on: 02.09.2026
Pronounced on: 11.09.2026
Uploaded on: 14 .09.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Vijay Singh Sohi, Age 37 years,
S/o Prithvi Singh,
R/o House No. 4, Gali No. 2,
…..Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Chakki Wali Gali, Old Janipur, Jammu
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation/ACB,
Jammu .…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Sagira Jaffar, Advocate
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Prayer:
S
1. The applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of
regular bail in FIR No. RC0042026A0007 dated 10.07.2026, registered
by CBI/ACB, Jammu, for the commission of offence punishable under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section
61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Brief Facts:
2. The allegations, as emerging from the FIR and the material placed on
record, are that on the basis of a written complaint lodged by Dr. Nitin
Sharma, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered on 10.07.2026, alleging
demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000/- by the applicant for
Page 2 of 15
conducting the mandatory physical inspection of his clinic for release of
subsidy of Rs. 5.00 lakh under the Khadi and Village Industries
Commission Scheme. During the trap proceedings conducted on the
same day, the applicant, accompanied by co-accused Mukesh Kumar,
allegedly visited the clinic of the complainant, where the applicant is
stated to have again demanded and accepted the alleged bribe amount
inside a blue-coloured Maruti Baleno vehicle.
3. It is further alleged that, on noticing the CBI Trap Team, the applicant
fled from the spot, whereas co-accused Mukesh Kumar was
apprehended and the tainted bribe money was recovered from his
possession. During the custodial interrogation of the applicant, the
vehicle allegedly used during the transaction was located on the basis of
information furnished by him, and phenolphthalein traces were
subsequently found from the dashboard compartment thereof.
4. The applicant surrendered before the learned Special Judge, Anti-
Corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu on 25.07.2026 and was thereafter taken
into custody. His application for regular bail was rejected by the learned
Special Judge vide order dated 01.08.2026. It is, however, relevant that
co-accused Mukesh Kumar, from whose possession the tainted money
was recovered, had earlier been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial
Court vide order dated 29.07.2026. The investigation is stated to be
continuing and the applicant is presently in judicial custody.
Submissions on behalf of the Applicant:
5. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant,
vehemently submits that no recovery of the alleged bribe amount has
Page 3 of 15
been effected from the applicant and that the tainted money was
recovered from the co-accused. It is, therefore, contended that there is
no material to show conscious acceptance of the alleged illegal
gratification by the applicant and, consequently, the allegations relating
to demand and acceptance cannot, at this stage, be treated as established
against him.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the vehicle allegedly used during
the trap does not belong to the applicant and that he has been falsely
connected with the said vehicle. It is also urged that the offence alleged
against the applicant is punishable with imprisonment extending up to
seven years and, therefore, his continued incarceration is not warranted,
particularly at the stage when the matter is still under investigation.
7. Learned counsel has also pressed the plea of parity, submitting that the
co-accused, from whose possession the tainted money was recovered,
has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. It is,
therefore, contended that the applicant is also entitled to the same
benefit. It is further submitted that the applicant has remained in custody
for more than thirty days, has no criminal antecedents and undertakes to
cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition that may be
imposed by this Court. Learned counsel, while placing reliance upon the
constitutional importance of personal liberty, submits that the applicant
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent:
8. Per contra , Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Senior AAG appearing for the
respondent, has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. Learned counsel
Page 4 of 15
submits that the applicant's earlier application for regular bail was
rejected by the learned Trial Court on 01.08.2026 and the present
application has been filed shortly thereafter. It is, therefore, contended
that there has been no change in circumstances warranting a view
different from that taken by the learned Trial Court.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the order whereby the co-accused
was enlarged on bail was within the knowledge of the learned Trial
Court while considering the applicant's bail application. Despite being
apprised of the said order, the learned Trial Court, after considering the
distinct role attributed to the applicant and the material collected during
investigation, declined to grant him the concession of bail for reasons
recorded in the order.
10. It is further contended that the case of the applicant stands on a different
footing from that of the co-accused. While the co-accused is a private
individual, the applicant is the public servant against whom the principal
allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification has been
levelled. According to learned counsel, the co-accused was
accompanying and assisting the applicant in the alleged transaction and,
therefore, the roles attributed to the two accused are materially distinct,
rendering the principle of parity inapplicable.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused was apprehended
on the date of the trap and remained in custody for more than fifteen
days before being enlarged on bail, whereas the applicant allegedly fled
from the spot. It is submitted that the applicant thereafter sought
anticipatory bail but did not secure the said relief and ultimately
Page 5 of 15
surrendered before the learned Trial Court on 25.07.2026. It is,
therefore, contended that, having regard to the distinct role and conduct
attributed to the applicant, no plea of parity can be claimed by him
merely because the co-accused has been enlarged on bail.
12. Learned counsel submits that, as the investigation is still in progress and
material witnesses are yet to be examined, there is a reasonable
apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, the applicant may influence
witnesses or otherwise interfere with the ongoing investigation.
13. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the
material stated to have been collected during investigation, including the
recorded conversation allegedly indicating the demand of illegal
gratification, the discovery of the vehicle allegedly used during the trap
on the basis of information furnished by the applicant, and the positive
phenolphthalein reaction obtained from the dashboard compartment of
the said vehicle. It is contended that these circumstances, when
considered cumulatively, furnish sufficient prima facie material
connecting the applicant with the alleged offence.
14. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel submits that there being no
material change in circumstances and the order passed by the learned
Trial Court not suffering from any infirmity warranting interference, the
applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of the concession of
regular bail. The application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
Legal Analysis:
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the
material available on record.
Page 6 of 15
16. Before examining the rival submissions, it would be apposite to notice
the settled parameters governing consideration of an application for bail.
At this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous
examination of the evidence or to record a finding as to the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Rather, the Court is required to examine
whether the material presently available on record discloses reasonable
grounds for believing that the accusation has substance and whether,
having regard to the attendant circumstances, the applicant has made out
a case for exercise of discretion in his favour.
17. The parameters governing the judicial exercise of discretion in matters
relating to grant of bail have been delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in ‘Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another’,
(2010) 14 SCC 496 , wherein it was observed as under:
"It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order
passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused.
However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise
its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the
point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be
borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."
Page 7 of 15
18. The aforesaid decision thus reinforces that the discretion to grant or refuse
bail is required to be exercised judiciously upon a consideration of the
nature and gravity of the accusation, the existence of a prima facie case and
the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses or otherwise interfering
with the course of justice.
19. Likewise, the principles governing the grant of bail and the scope of such
examination have been further succinctly explained by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in ‘Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai
Reddy’, (2013) 7 SCC 452 , wherein it was held as under:
“28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of
the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the
accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It
has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the
Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing"
instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the
grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case
against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce
prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at
this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.”
20. Thus, at the stage of consideration of bail, the Court is required to examine
whether reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accusation is
supported by prima facie material, while also keeping in view the nature of
the accusation, the material in support thereof and the possibility of
witnesses being influenced.
Page 8 of 15
21. Tested on the aforesaid parameters, the contention of the learned counsel
for the applicant that the alleged tainted money was not recovered from his
personal possession, by itself, cannot be treated as determinative of the
question of bail. In the present case, the allegation is not confined merely to
the recovery of the tainted amount from the co-accused. The material
placed before this Court indicates that the applicant, who is a public
servant, is the person against whom the principal allegation of demand of
illegal gratification in connection with an official function has been
levelled. The material further indicates the alleged presence of the
applicant at the place of the trap, his association with the co-accused during
the alleged transaction, the recorded conversation relied upon by the
investigating agency, and the subsequent discovery of the vehicle allegedly
used during the transaction on the basis of information furnished by the
applicant, from which phenolphthalein traces are stated to have been
detected.
22. This Court is conscious of the submission that the aforesaid circumstances
and their evidentiary worth are disputed by the applicant. However, at the
stage of bail, this Court is not required to finally determine those questions.
The limited question is whether such material can be wholly disregarded
while forming a prima facie view regarding the accusation. In the
considered opinion of this Court, it cannot. The plea of the applicant that
the absence of recovery from him negatives the allegation of demand and
acceptance, therefore, cannot be accepted as a ground for grant of bail at
this stage.
Page 9 of 15
23. The nature of the accusation is also a relevant consideration. The allegation
against the applicant is of abuse of his position as a public servant for
obtaining illegal gratification in connection with the discharge of an
official function. Such allegations are not to be viewed merely as an
isolated monetary transaction, since they concern the integrity of public
administration and the confidence reposed by the people in public
institutions.
24. In this context, the observations of this Court in ‘Mohd. Ishaq Bhat v.
Central Bureau of Investigation’ , Bail App No. 131/2024, decided on
03.07.2024, assume relevance, wherein the Court while considering the
distinct nature of offences involving allegations of corruption and the
corresponding possibility of influence upon the complainant or other
witnesses observed as under:
“5. However, this Court differs in the opinion that an offence under
the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act can also be dealt
with the same yardsticks that may be applied for offences against
human body or other categories of offences. It must be borne in mind
that offence against human body may be a crime of passion which
may at times result in one man taking the life of another in a fit of
anger arising at the moment without premeditation and without any
preparation. However, offences of cheating, corruption and other
white color offences are impossible to be committed without serious
premeditation. For the offence for which the applicant has been
accused of, a great deal of planning, arrangements and other
associations with co-accused persons are required before the transfer
of money can take place effectively from the victim to the accused.
Such persons have their own contacts, touts and agents, who
intercede with the victim on behalf of the corrupt official and coax
him to part with money for a solution based upon the discretionary
power of that public servant.
Page 10 of 15
6. Though, this Court is not prejudiced by the various instances of
corruption that may be taking place in this Country viz. bridges
collapsing one after the other during the rains, roads collapsing and
huge sinkholes forming after just one shower, but it cannot close its
eyes to the fact that in a case of bribe taking, if the accused is
released prematurely on bail, more so where he has been caught red
handed by the police, the probability of the accused influencing the
complainant and the witnesses by offering them monetary benefit, is
extremely high and not certainly improbable in the facts and
circumstances of this case.”
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also emphasized that offences involving
economic and financial impropriety may warrant a distinct approach in the
matter of bail. In ‘Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of
Investigation’, (2013) 7 SCC 466 , it was observed as under:
“28) Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic
offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby
posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.”
26. The aforesaid decisions underscore the serious nature of offences
involving corruption and financial impropriety and the wider
ramifications which such conduct may have upon public administration
and society. Corruption, when committed by a public servant in the
course of discharge of his official functions, strikes at the very
foundation of public confidence in public institutions and the fairness
with which public duties are expected to be discharged.
27. A public servant occupies a position of trust and is expected to perform
his official functions in accordance with law. However , in the present
case, the applicant is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification for
Page 11 of 15
performing an act connected with his official duties. The allegation,
therefore, is not merely of an unlawful demand of money, but of an
alleged abuse of a public position for private gain. Though the
correctness of the accusation is a matter to be established during trial,
the nature and gravity of such allegation cannot be overlooked while
considering the prayer for bail.
28. The stage of investigation also assumes significance in the present
matter. In ‘Darbara Singh v. Union Territory of J&K’ , Bail App No.
39/2021, decided on 26.02.2021, this court, while considering the prayer
for bail at an early stage of investigation and taking note of the possibility
of the accused influencing the investigation or the witnesses, held as under:
“10. Viewed, thus, I am in agreement with the respondent that the
investigation, which commenced with the registration of FIR on
29.01.2021 is at its infancy and remaining the applicant at large, at
this stage, is bound to provide an opportunity to the applicant to
influence the course of investigation by tempering with the official
records or influencing the prosecution witnesses. The respondent has
found the cash and incriminating documents from the residential
premises of the applicant and who knows there could be many more
evidences yet to be collected by the Investigating Agency. Twenty five
days is not too sufficient, a time to complete the investigation. This
Court, therefore, finds it too early for the applicant to claim bail.”
29. In the present case also, the FIR came to be registered only on
10.07.2026. The applicant is alleged to have fled from the spot during
the trap proceedings and ultimately surrendered before the learned Trial
Court only on 25.07.2026. Thus, the investigation is still stated to be at a
nascent stage and material witnesses are yet to be examined. Having
regard to the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicant
and the stage at which the investigation presently stands, the
apprehension expressed by the respondent regarding possible
interference by the applicant being a public servant with the
Page 12 of 15
investigation or influence upon material witnesses cannot be said to be
without substance. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that it
would be premature at this stage to hold that the applicant deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
30. At the same time, while the nature of the accusation, the stage of
investigation and the apprehension of interference with the course of
investigation are relevant considerations, the Court is not expected, at
the stage of bail, to undertake a detailed scrutiny of the evidence so as to
arrive at any conclusive finding regarding the guilt or innocence of the
accused. The examination at this stage is necessarily limited to
determining whether the material available on record discloses a prima
facie case and whether, upon a cumulative consideration of the relevant
circumstances, the discretion to grant bail ought to be exercised.
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in “Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia”,
(2020) 2 SCC 118 , explained the manner in which the material on
record is to be assessed at the stage of bail and observed as under:-
“12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail
involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature
of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view
of the involvement of the accused are important. No straight jacket
formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or
rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the
grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis
of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial.
However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed
the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the
continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the
criminal justice system...”
32. The principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions make it clear that, at
the stage of consideration of bail, the Court is not expected to undertake a
meticulous appreciation of the evidence or record findings on the merits of
Page 13 of 15
the case. The enquiry is confined to examining whether the material placed
on record discloses a prima facie case and whether the larger interests of
justice warrant the continued custody or release of the accused.
33. Examined on the aforesaid touchstone, the present case cannot be
considered solely on the basis that the tainted money was not recovered
from the personal possession of the applicant or that the applicant
disputes conscious acceptance of the alleged gratification. The case of
the respondent is that the applicant, being a public servant, is the person
against whom the principal allegation of demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification has been levelled, while the co-accused allegedly
accompanied and assisted him in the transaction. The material brought
to the notice of this Court includes the recorded conversation allegedly
indicating demand, the vehicle alleged to have been used in the
transaction having been located on the basis of information furnished by
the applicant, and the positive phenolphthalein reaction obtained from
the dashboard compartment thereof. At this stage, without entering into
a detailed appreciation of the evidentiary value of such material, the
same cannot altogether be disregarded while forming a prima facie view
regarding the involvement of the applicant.
34. The plea of parity also does not persuade this Court to exercise its
discretion in favour of the applicant. Though the co-accused, from
whose possession the tainted money was recovered, has been enlarged
on bail, parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis of a common FIR.
The role attributed to the applicant is materially distinct, inasmuch as he
is alleged to be the public servant who demanded and accepted the
Page 14 of 15
illegal gratification, whereas the co-accused is stated to have
accompanied and assisted him in the alleged transaction. The benefit
granted to the co-accused, therefore, cannot be extended to the applicant
as a matter of course.
35. More importantly, the order granting bail to the co-accused dated
29.07.2026 was already in existence when the learned Trial Court
considered and rejected the applicant's bail application on 01.08.2026.
The present application has been instituted only four days thereafter.
Therefore, no material change in circumstances has been demonstrated
before this Court which could justify a substantially different conclusion
from the one reached by the learned Trial Court.
36. This Court is also conscious of the submissions that the offence alleged
carries a maximum punishment of seven years, that the applicant has no
criminal antecedents and that he has remained in custody for more than
thirty days. These are relevant circumstances and have been duly
considered. However, having regard to the cumulative assessment
required at the stage of bail, such circumstances cannot, by themselves,
outweigh the prima facie material, the nature of the accusation, the
distinct role attributed to the applicant and the stage of investigation.
Conclusion:
37. Thus, upon an overall consideration of the nature and gravity of the
accusations, the distinct role attributed to the applicant, the material
presently collected during investigation, the stage at which the
investigation stands, the apprehension regarding the possibility of
interference with the course of investigation or influence upon material
Page 15 of 15
witnesses and the absence of any material change, this Court is of the
considered view that the material presently available discloses a prima
facie case against the applicant for the purpose of bail. The
circumstances relied upon by the applicant, including the absence of
recovery of the tainted money from his personal possession, the grant of
bail to the co-accused, absence of criminal antecedents and the period of
custody undergone by him, do not, when considered cumulatively with
the aforesaid factors, persuade this Court to exercise its discretion in his
favour at this stage.
38. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to grant the concession of regular
bail to the applicant at this stage. It is, however, clarified that the
observations made herein are confined solely to the consideration of the
present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on
the merits of the case, which shall be considered independently during
the course of trial.
39. Accordingly, the present application seeking grant of regular bail is
dismissed .
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
Jammu:
11.09.2026
Nikhil
Whether order is speaking : Yes
Whether order is reportable: Yes/No