Cosco Shipping employee Shuaib Qumar Khan denied anticipatory bail in bribery case involving DIT Relief Certificates | Representational Image
Mumbai: The special CBI court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a 55-year-old employee of shipping company who is accused of having bribed income tax official by way of hotel booking or sponsored holidays for 100% DIT Relief Certificates.
Shuaib Qumar Khan had approached the court claiming that he was a salaried employee of Cosco Shipping Lines (India) Pvt Ltd and had a limited role in the process of issuance of 100% DIT Relief Certificates.
Khan was booked along with Subodh Roy, an inspector in the Income Tax Department, for bribing Roy to obtain the certificate.
The CBI in its FIR had claimed that Khan had made booking for Roy and his family at a hotel in Matheran and had paid Rs25,000 towards that. It was claimed that Roy had stayed there for two days from May 5-7, 2024.
While seeking anticipatory bail, Khan had denied any wrongful act and said that the alleged payment for the hotel booking was reimbursed by the co-accused, and that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He further contended that his arrest would cause irreparable harm to his reputation and livelihood.
Besides, he claimed that his role in the issuance of DIT Relief Certificates was limited to forwarding documents online as part of his official duties and that he had no influence over the decision-making process.
The CBI, however, claimed that, Khan frequently gave undue advantages to Roy, in exchange for the processing of DIT Relief Certificates. The CBI had further stated that Khan made payments for hotel bookings on behalf of the co-accused, and that there was reliable evidence of Khan’s involvement in repeated instances of corruption.
The court while rejecting the plea said: “The allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and allegedly supported by prima facie evidence. The applicant’s role in facilitating undue advantages to the co-accused is also submitted to be corroborated by the payment records and other evidence. Considering the stage of the investigation and the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.”
