TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial 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. - R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4968 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 14-10-2020 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Appearance: Mr. BM Mangukiya (437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 Ms. Bela A Prajapati (1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 Ms. Krina Calla, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 CAV JUDGMENT By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, present applicant has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R No.I1119400200002 of 2020 before ACB Police Station, District Surendranagar for the offence punishable under Sections 12, 7(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The brief facts are as under: That applicant has done his graduation in Bachelor of Engineering (Electronics and Communications) and is appointed as the Inspector in the office of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the applicant has attended the reception of his friendNiravkumar Arora on 07.02.2020. That the applicant was apprehending his arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR and, therefore, preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the learned District Judge and Special Judge (Atrocity), Surendranagar, being Criminal Misc. Application No.149 of 2020. That the co accused Mr.Rajivkumar Raviraj and Mr.Ravi Bhavanishanker Joshi were arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR, and therefore, they preferred application for regular bail before learned District and Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, being Criminal Misc. Application No.148 of 2020. The learned Additional District Judge and Special Judge (Atrocity) vide order dated 29.02.2020 rejected bail application qua Mr. Rajivkumar Raviraj. So far as other coaccused Mr. Ravi Bhavanishanker Joshi is concerned, learned Judge allowed bail application qua him. That, learned District Judge and Special Judge (Atrocity), Surendranagar vide order dated 29.02.2020 rejected the application preferred by the applicant under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thus, present application has been filed by the present applicant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, it is requested by learned advocate for the applicant to enlarge the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest. Learned APP has strongly opposed the arguments of the applicant and argued that the prosecution has produced investigation papers for perusal of this Court. It is argued that from the investigation papers, it is clearly revealed that first informant had a talk with the present applicant Mr.Arora and co accused Mr. Rajiv Yadav. He is not Verma but he is Mr.Gaurav Arora. Learned APP has invited attention of this Court in respect of transcript scrip of applicant's talk between the first informant and the present applicant and argued that it clearly supports the prosecution case demanding illegal gratification of money by the present applicant for avoiding legal procedure of alleged irregularity committed by the first informant in connection with GST. That applicant being a public servant serving as GST Inspector, Class II in the office of Central GST at Surendranagar has made clear demand of illegal gratification of money from the first informant alongwith the co accused and has committed the offence. The amount of illegal gratification was also recovered f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant approached the office of ACB and a trap was arranged on the basis of the complaint received from the complainant. As discussion was made with the accused no.1 and complainant demanding amount of illegal gratification from him and to pay the amount to the accused no.3. Amount of illegal gratification was accepted by the accused no.3. Accused nos.1 and 3 were caught by the raiding party as they were in collision in commission of offence and as were connected in commission of offence, a complaint was registered against them. Video recording was used in the entire proceedings. 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e F.I.R. clearly attracted and attributed the role independent in itself. The exact role of the applicant accused was discernible from the allegations in F.I.R. and attendant facts and circumstance. The alleged criminal conduct has resulted into loss to public exchequer and the crime allegedly committed by the applicant has to be public money dimension and consideration of societal interest at large, therefore the nature and gravity of accusation is serious enough. Looking to the gravity of the alleged crime and the severity of punishment, the powers under Section 438 are not liable to be exercised in favour of the applicant. As discussed above, nor it could be said that the investigation would not require the applicant for the purpose of interrogation. The applicant is described as noncooperative in the investigation by the investigating officer as per the report mentioned hereinabove. The principles laid down in Siddhram Stalingappa Mhetre (supra) came to be relied on by the Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [(2012) 4 SCC 379] and it was observed by the Supreme Court as under. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
