Bar Council member denied anticipatory bail

The Delhi High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of R. Dhanapal Raj, Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council of India and member of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, cited as an accused in a CBI first information report registered in December 2010.

The FIR says R.S. Rana, member, Bar Council of Delhi, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the petitioner to demand an illegal gratification from Manish Tyagi for a law college inspection and for giving a favourable report for recognition of the institution.

Dismissing the application, Justice Hima Kohli said: “Having regard to the status of the petitioner, there can be no doubt about the influence he wields in society in general and the legal fraternity in particular.” The relief sought by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail might result in hampering investigation and influencing the material witnesses, whose statements were being recorded by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The CBI, opposing the application, pointed out that the agency had recovered Rs. 74,10,500 from the petitioner. There was sufficient evidence that an initial demand for payment of a bribe was made by the petitioner to the college through Mr. Tyagi for providing a favourable inspection report. This was fortified by the statement of a witness, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, where the demand made by both the petitioner and co-accused Rana at the time of inspection had been mentioned, the CBI said.

“Not involved in talks”

Counsel for Mr. Raj, however, submitted that the gravamen of the accusation were actually the negotiations over the gratification amount between Mr. Tyagi and Mr. Rana, and did not involve the petitioner. The sum of Rs. 74,10,500 allegedly recovered did not belong to him alone and only Rs. 29 lakh was recovered from his premises, while the remaining amount was recovered from his brother-in-law.

The judge said the status reports submitted by the CBI in a sealed cover as also the file of the investigating officer had been perused. “The contention of counsel for the petitioner that there is neither any allegation levelled against him nor an iota of evidence that he was negotiating over the gratification amount with Mr. Tyagi to give a favourable report in favour of the Global College of Law, prima facie appears to be contrary to the statement of the witness recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC.”