2021 (6) TMI 261 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Anticipatory Bail - demand of illegal gratification - offence punishable under Sections 12 7(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - HELD THAT - From the complaint it appears that present applicant was referred as Shri Verma officer. From the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the investigation officer during the course of investigation it appears that present applicant was not Shri Verma but he was Shri Arora and his correct name is shown in column no.7 of the complainant. However in the description of the complaint he was referred as Shri Verma Officer. Amount of GST if applicable would be deposited through bank only and no amount in cash would require to be demanded or to be paid. If we refer the panchnama drawn during the course of investigation it also supports the case of the prosecution that presence of the present applicant was also found as well as participation in the offence. Present applicant has been charged with the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and the investigation is at a very crucial stage. No exceptional or special circumstances have been pointed out by the learned applicant for the applicant for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail - The presumption of innocence cannot be sole consideration of the grant of bail as requested. Application rejected.

Issues Involved:
1. Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Allegations under Sections 12, 7(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Prima facie case and involvement of the applicant.
4. Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
5. Role and identification of the applicant.
6. Legal precedents and principles for granting anticipatory bail in corruption cases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Anticipatory Bail:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, fearing arrest in connection with FIR No. I1119400200002 of 2020 registered at ACB Police Station, Surendranagar. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 12, 7(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Allegations under Prevention of Corruption Act:
The FIR lodged by the complainant detailed that the applicant, along with co-accused, demanded a bribe of Rs. 75,000 to avoid legal formalities related to GST irregularities. The complainant, who owns multiple shops, was allegedly asked to pay a penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs for various violations. The applicant was implicated in demanding and accepting illegal gratification.

3. Prima Facie Case and Involvement of the Applicant:
The applicant argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated. He claimed he was not in the town during the alleged incident and was attending a friend’s reception in Patna. The applicant contested that there was no direct allegation of him demanding or accepting money. However, the prosecution presented investigation papers and transcripts indicating the applicant’s involvement in the demand for illegal gratification.

4. Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification:
The prosecution’s case was supported by the transcript of conversations between the complainant and the applicant, where the demand for illegal gratification was evident. The amount was allegedly recovered from an envelope in the applicant’s office, corroborating the complainant’s allegations.

5. Role and Identification of the Applicant:
The applicant was initially referred to as "Shri Verma" in the complaint but was later correctly identified as "Shri Arora". The investigation confirmed his presence and participation in the offence. The panchnama and witness statements supported the prosecution’s case.

6. Legal Precedents and Principles for Granting Anticipatory Bail:
The court referred to previous judgments, emphasizing that anticipatory bail in corruption cases involving public servants should be granted only in the rarest of rare cases. The court cited the case of Rajesh Chandulal Shah vs. State of Gujarat, highlighting that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary privilege and should be granted only if the court is convinced of false implication or malafide allegations.

The court also referenced the case of Siddhram Stalingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, noting that the magnitude of the offence and societal interest are crucial considerations. The Supreme Court’s observations in Subramanian Swamy vs. CBI and Manoj Narula’s case were also discussed, underscoring the seriousness of corruption and the need for a strong legal response.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the applicant’s involvement in the alleged offence was evident from the investigation records and transcripts. Given the gravity of the offence and the principles laid down in previous judgments, the court rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The interim protection earlier granted was extended for one month to allow the applicant to approach a higher forum.

Order:
The application for anticipatory bail is rejected. The interim protection granted is extended for one month for the applicant to challenge the order before a higher forum.

← Previous Next →