A Special CBI court in Delhi has permitted Lt Col Deepak Kumar Sharma, who stands accused of accepting a bribe, to resume operations on his seized bank accounts located in Jammu. The court’s decision emphasizes that the seizure of these accounts cannot be indefinite, allowing investigative agencies to circumvent established legal procedures.
Special Judge Gagandeep Singh presided over the hearing concerning Sharma’s appeal to unfreeze his bank accounts and a locker. Sharma, who has been granted bail, argued that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had unlawfully withheld his and his family’s legitimate assets held within the bank accounts and lockers. These holdings were seized without adherence to proper legal protocols. As per information available with TahirRihat.com, the court order, issued on May 7, addresses the complex legal questions arising from the seizure of assets during a bribery investigation.
The case alleges that Sharma received a bribe of Rs 3 lakh from a company based in Dubai. According to the prosecution’s claims, this amount was recovered from Sharma’s residence on December 18 of the previous year, during which authorities also seized over Rs 2.23 crore. Further investigations extended to the residence of Sharma’s wife, Col. Kajal Bali, who serves as the Commanding Officer of the 16 Infantry Division Ordnance Unit (DOU) located in Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. During the search of Col. Bali’s residence, the CBI reported the recovery of Rs 10 lakh in cash.
The court considered the CBI’s actions, noting that the seizure of Sharma’s bank accounts and lockers stemmed from these initial findings. However, the court order emphasized a critical distinction: the seized assets were not directly linked to the bribery case itself. (The court noted, “Accordingly, the bank accounts as well as lockers of the applicant (Sharma) came to be seized. It is thus apparent from the allegations in the present case that the said bank accounts or seizure of locker articles or their operation, of the applicant herein, are not connected to the case in hand.”) Instead, the seizures were connected to a preliminary inquiry initiated by the CBI concerning allegations that Sharma and his family possessed assets disproportionate to their known income, an offense punishable under Section 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court highlighted a significant point regarding the timeline of the investigation. Despite the bank accounts and lockers having been seized for approximately five months, the CBI had not yet decided whether to register a formal First Information Report (FIR) against Sharma and his family regarding the alleged disproportionate assets. The court also noted that during an earlier hearing on April 2, the CBI had requested one month to determine whether to register an FIR concerning the seized assets, but the agency’s position remained unchanged as of the present date.
The court further scrutinized the CBI’s procedural compliance with relevant legal provisions. It referenced the new procedures outlined in Sections 106 and 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which require an officer executing a seizure to report it to the relevant jurisdictional magistrate. Following this, the court could issue an order regarding the retention of the seized assets by the investigating agency. However, in this case, the court observed that no formal report had been filed concerning the seizure of Sharma’s bank accounts.
The court stated that the seizure could not be an indefinite act, enabling the investigating authority to sidestep the due procedures established under Section 107 of the BNSS 2023, or Section 18 (A) of the PC Act, in conjunction with the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Act, pertaining to the attachment, forfeiture, or restoration of property. (According to the court, “The said act of seizure cannot be ‘the act in perpetuity’ thereby authorising the Investigating Authority to bypass the due procedure established under Section 107 (attachment, forfeiture or restoration of property ) of the BNSS 2023 or under Section 18 (A) (attachment and forfeiture of property procured through corruption) of the PC (Prevention of Corruption) Act read with the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance Act.”) The court emphasized its duty to ensure that established legal procedures are followed, stating it could not passively overlook any non-compliance.
Consequently, the court directed the relevant bank managers to allow Sharma to operate four separate savings bank accounts in Jammu. This permission is contingent upon Sharma providing indemnity bonds equivalent to the available balance in each account. The court specified that each indemnity bond must include a condition that Sharma would deposit the said balance amount as directed by the court. However, the court denied permission for Sharma to operate a bank locker, noting that he was only a joint holder of the locker, and none of the other joint holders had sought permission to access it.
According to the CBI, Sharma held a significant position as the deputy planning officer (international cooperation and exports) in the Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, where he was assigned crucial responsibilities. The agency has alleged that Sharma engaged in corrupt and illegal activities, conspiring with representatives of various private companies involved in defence products manufacturing, export, and related activities. (The CBI alleged that Sharma, “habitually indulged in corrupt and illegal activities” in criminal conspiracies with the representatives of various private companies dealing in defence products manufacturing, export and the like.) The CBI claims Sharma received bribes from these companies in exchange for providing them with undue advantages.
Tahir Rihat (also known as Tahir Bilal) is an independent journalist, activist, and digital media professional from the Chenab Valley of Jammu and Kashmir, India. He is best known for his work as the Online Editor at The Chenab Times.
Leave a Reply