Gujarat High Court
Samir Ambalal Mehta vs State Of Gujarat on 21 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 4720
of 2025
==========================================================
SAMIR AMBALAL MEHTA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KISHAN P KOTAK(13912) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 21/03/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice for the respective respondents.
2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being I- C.R.No.11194012240009 of 2024 registered with ACB Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offence punishable under Sections 34, 204, 406, 409, 477(A) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code/Nayay Sanhita, Section 447 and 452 of the Companies Act, Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)(2), 13(1)(a) 13(2)(12) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 13(1), 13(1)(A) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the present applicant was employed as the Deputy Director of Accounts and General Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined Manager of Services at Gujarat Informatics Limited (GIL) during the relevant period, alongside Ms. Ruchi Bhavsar, who served as an Executive Accountant at GIL in 2017-18. During this time, it is claimed that 44 bank transactions occurred, resulting in an amount totaling Rs. 67,81,244/- being deposited into the ac- count of Soni Travels and other unauthorized vendors. It is al- leged that the accused, in collusion with one another, conspired to misuse the company's assets, thereby benefiting individuals who were not authorized to receive such payments. Furthermore, it is claimed that the accused, acting with a common intent to defraud the company, destroyed the vouchers that authorized these payments. By engaging in such corrupt practices, they are alleged to have committed an offense of corruption which led to the present compliant.
4. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offenses as alleged in the FIR. The FIR appears to have been registered in a premeditated manner, falsely implicating the applicant in the alleged offense. The offense is said to have occurred during the years 2017-18, whereas the compliant was filed in December 2024, with no explanation provided by the prosecution for this delay. The applicant served as the Deputy Director of the Accounts Department at Gujarat Informatics Limited (hereinafter referred to as GIL), a government company. The entire process of bill preparation and payment was handled by the Accounts Department, after which the bills were presented to the applicant for approval. Beyond affixing his signature and clearing the bills, the applicant neither received any monetary benefit nor can he Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined be said to have conspired with the co-accused to commit the alleged offense. The applicant's tenure at GIL ended in April 2018, and thus he cannot be held accountable for the period mentioned in the FIR. It is further submitted that all bills underwent a pre-audit by the Accounts Department before being sanctioned for payment. Only after the pre-audit was cleared were the bills forwarded for approval, further establishing the applicant's innocence. It is alleged that, as GIL is a government entity, a false case has been fabricated against the applicant to shield higher-ranking officers. The applicant has neither derived any financial gain nor engaged in forging or fabricating documents, nor is there evidence that he destroyed vouchers as alleged. It is submitted that seven reports have been presented before the Legislative Assembly along with AG's comments, and no discrepancies or adverse remarks have been noted in any of these reports. Consequently, custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The applicant has no prior criminal record and has maintained an unblemished career throughout his service and co-accused has already been released on bail. In view of the above, the applicant prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.
5. The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed the application and submitted that the applicant is di- rectly involved in the offense. It is submitted that the present ap- plicant is involved in illegal activities. It is submitted that during the year 2017-2018, the applicant was serving as Deputy Direc- tor (Accounts) and General Manager (Services), while Ms. Ruchi Bhavsar was employed as an Executive Accountant at Gujarat Informatics Limited (GIL), Gandhinagar. It is alleged that during Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined this financial year, 44 transactions were executed in favor of one Ashwin Soni of Soni Travels and other unauthorized persons, re- sulting in payments totaling Rs. 67,81,244/-. It is further alleged that the accused, in collusion with one another, prepared false vouchers, tampered with the amounts specified therein, and cre- ated bogus vouchers, thereby facilitating payments of inflated amounts to Soni Travels and other entities. These entities had neither been awarded any tender nor entered into any contract with GIL. Through these actions, the accused are said to have misappropriated an amount of Rs. 67,81,244/-. The applicant, in his capacity as Deputy Director (Accounts), was the autho- rized person responsible for approving payments. It is contended that he sanctioned payments exceeding the amounts he was au- thorized to approve, and this conduct is cited as evidence of his complicity with the co-accused in the commission of the alleged offense. Hence, it is prayed that the present application be dis- missed. To substantiate his submission, the learned APP has re- lied upon the judgment of the Honorable Apex Court in the case of Sudhir v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 146, wherein the Court observed that in cases involving the misap- propriation of public funds and corruption, custodial interroga- tion is necessary.
6. The Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence and as to whether prima facie it appears that accused has committed an offence, is required to be consid- ered. So far as the anticipatory bail is concerned, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:- (i) the nature of accu- sation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable appre- hension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the com- plainant of the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the ac- cused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective par- ties and having gone through the evidence on record, it appears that the applicant, who was the Deputy Director of Accounts and General Manager of Services at Gujarat Informatics Limited (GIL), along with a co-accused in GIL (a public undertaking unit) in 2017-18, was involved in financial fraud, misused his power, and took undue advantage. They allegedly carried out 44 illegal bank transactions, transferring Rs. 67,81,244/. to Soni Travels and other unauthorized vendors. It also appears that the ac- cused conspired to misuse company funds for personal gain. The company was not empaneled by GIL, yet the accused transferred the amount to a fictitious company and siphoned off the funds. To cover up their actions, they are said to have destroyed the payment vouchers, making it difficult to trace the fraudulent transactions. As a result, they are facing corruption charges, leading to the current complaint against them.
Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined
8. In view of the above, the applicant, Deputy Director (Ac- counts) and General Manager (Services), along with co-accused Smt. Ruchi Bhavsar, Executive Accountant at Gujarat Informat- ics Limited (GIL), a public undertaking unit, are accused of exe- cuting 44 fraudulent bank transactions in 2017-18. They al- legedly transferred Rs. 67,81,244/- to accused No.3-Shri Ashwin Soni, proprietor of Soni Travels, and other unauthorized individ- uals, causing a financial loss to GIL, though the companies were not empaneled with GIL. The present applicant has authroity to pass voucher below two lakh rupees. The accused are said to have conspired to commit fraud by inflating voucher amounts, transferring excess funds via online payments, and later destroy- ing the forged vouchers to conceal their actions. By misusing their positions, they allegedly engaged in corruption and misap- propriated government funds, and in this regard the complaint has been registered against the present applicant alongwith other co-accused.
9. It also appears that the present applicant associated with Soni Travels, was engaged in the business of renting four-wheel vehicles to government offices and private entities through a ten- der process. During the financial year 2017-18, they provided such vehicles on rent to GIL (a public undertaking unit) under a tender agreement. These vehicles were utilized by GIL employees and officers for official purposes, including projects and govern- ment programs across Gujarat. The accused submitted several vouchers to GIL, some lacking signatures and others bearing Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined forged signatures, to falsely justify payments. These vouchers were considered and approved by present applicant-accused No. 1 who, exercising the authority vested in their position, signed the bills and authorized the transfer of funds into the co-ac- cused's bank account. The co-accused provided vehicles on rent to GIL, and for the dates of usage, vouchers were required to bear the signatures of the employees or officers who utilized the vehicles. However, these vouchers were prepared and forwarded through Accused No. 2, Smt. Ruchi Bhavsar (Executive Accoun- tant), to Accused No. 1, the General Manager (Accounts), who is the present applicant. Investigation revealed that the applicant was responsible for creating these vouchers. Examination of the records disclosed that on 16.12.2017, three vouchers were is- sued for the same date and time, each purportedly for a different vehicle but listing the same individual as the user. A statement recorded on 17.12.2024 from the vehicle user/witness confirmed that only one vehicle was used, and the additional two vouchers were fabricated with forged signatures, indicating that the ac- cused fraudulently obtained government funds through these falsified documents. In this matter, the applicant/accused pre- pared two vouchers dated 28.11.2017, each for the same date and time but pertaining to different vehicles. A statement recorded on 21.12.2024 from the vehicle user/witness clarified that only one vehicle was actually used, and the second voucher falsely attributed usage to them with a forged signature. This suggests that the accused deliberately created fraudulent vouch- ers and submitted inflated bills to illicitly acquire government funds. On 28.12.2017, the accused prepared a voucher listing "Vijay Office" as the vehicle user, claiming continuous usage of a Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined vehicle from 28.12.2017 to 31.12.2017, spanning four days. Upon scrutiny, the voucher was found to lack a signature from the purported user. A statement recorded on 01.01.2024 from the witness, an employee of the company's office, confirmed that no vehicle was used for four consecutive days, and no signature was affixed to the voucher. This indicates that the voucher was falsely prepared and presented as genuine to fraudulently obtain government funds.
10. It also appears from the records that on 15.03.2018, a voucher was sanctioned for Rs. 37,770/-, which was pre-audited and approved for payment. However, on the same day, the payment was made by fraudulently adding a prefix '1', resulting in an inflated payment of Rs. 1,37,770/-. Similarly, on 07.12.2019, a voucher originally sanctioned for Rs. 26,416/- was manipulated by adding a prefix '1', leading to a payment of Rs. 1,26,416/-. To evade the requirement of higher authorization for voucher approval, the present applicant deliberately sanctioned multiple vouchers, ensuring each remained below Rs. 2,00,000/-, as any amount exceeding this limit required joint authorization from the Director and the applicant for withdrawal from the HDFC account. The applicant allegedly approved these vouchers while leaving the official register blank, subsequently signing them himself. This malpractice was detected during the audit, but the original vouchers were found to have been destroyed. Out of 44 vouchers, only 11 have been traced, while the remaining are yet to be located. Furthermore, unauthorized payments totaling Rs. 11,14,425/- were made to companies such as Global Tax System, Vruj Computer Services, and Dhruv Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined Enterprises, despite these companies not being empaneled with GIL. These payments were made for the supply of goods under a service contract in the absence of any valid agreement.
11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, there is prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the offense, as he has misused his authority for undue advantage. Summons were issued to the applicant under Section 179, but he remained absent and failed to join or cooperate in the investigation. During the investigation, a forensic audit report was filed, revealing that Rs. 67,81,244/- was siphoned off. It was found that the applicant manipulated the vouchers, leading to the misappropriation of substantial company funds. Therefore, his prima facie involvement is evident. Accordingly, no case is made out for granting anticipatory bail, as custodial interrogation is required, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sudhir v. Chandrakant, 2016 (1) SCC 146.
12. As the applicant is facing charges under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act , in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Devender Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 320, wherein the Court observed that:
"17. Section 7 is with regard to a public servant taking gratification other than the legal remuneration in respect of an official act. On the other hand, Section 13 of the Act, 1988 is with regard to criminal misconduct by a public servant. A public servant could be said to have committed an offence of criminal misconduct, if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself Or for any other person any gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined such as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act.
18. XXX.
19. XXX.
20. XXX.
21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can granted only be in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.
22. XXX.
23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.
24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant accused of indulging in corruption.
25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the unsavory cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned:
"Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long".
In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities.
Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations.
If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one form the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties."
13. Considering the applicant's involvement, this is not a case where discretion should be exercised in his favor. His actions were motivated purely by personal gain, disregarding the larger public interest. If released on bail, there is a strong possibility that he may tamper with evidence and re-engage in similar illegal activities.
14. The accused is suspected of aiding in the crime, and a de- tailed interrogation of their bank account transactions is needed. The applicant is accused of a large-scale fraud, and custodial in- terrogation is necessary. The government has opposed granting anticipatory bail, stating it could delay the investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses. Releasing the applicant would prevent the investigating agency from properly question- ing them while in custody.
15. In aforesaid backdrop, custodial interrogation is necessary. When serious offences are disclosed and involvement of an ac- cused prima facie established then, the Court would be loath to lean in favour of grant of pre-arrest bail in absence of any other Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined overriding considerations. The alleged offence is in nature of white collar and socioeconomic offence, this Court is conscious with the safeguards provided under Section 438 of the CrPC and concept of the personal liberty. But herein, I am of the consid- ered of view that, the present offence is committed very smartly which is not just an offence against any individual rather the largest societal interest and public welfare is involved at and in such circumstances, the delicate balance is required to be main- tained between two rights one against the personal liberty and second is societal interest. Arrest is part of the process of investi- gation and intended to secure several purposes. In which the ac- cused may provide information, during the the discovery of ma- terial facts and to relevant information.
16. In such circumstances, when investigation is in prelimi- nary stage if, anticipatory bail is granted may hamper the inves- tigation and to collect the material in the more information, and find out the involvements of another person custodial interroga- tion is also necessary, therefore, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187,
(ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 and (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement re- ported in AIR 2019 SC 4198, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held held as follows:
"The legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined offence is not just an offence against an individual rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights
- safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest.
Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipa- tory bail may hamper the investigation. It may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interro- gation would elude if the accused knows that he is pro- tected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a bal- ance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the ac- cused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant informa- tion. In this view, it cannot be said that refusal to grant an- ticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights con- ferred upon the appellant/applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, power under Section 438 CrPC being an ex- traordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the soci- ety. The privilege of the prearrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after applica- tion of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. Anticipatory bail is to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is con- vinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy".Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined Having regard to nature of allegations and stage of investi- gations, held investigating agency must be given sufficient freedom in process of investigation. Appellant not entitled to anticipatory bail as the same would hamper the investi- gation"
17. Further, in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs The State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 19 as under:
19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent in-
dividuals from harassment, italso presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice.
The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance be- tween safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of inno- cence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each indi- vidual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."
18. Further, keeping in mind Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/ s State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 1 SCC
694. Herein, I have gone through the material available against the accused very carefully and it appears that herein, no com- plaint has been made with view to humiliating or tarnish the im-
Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined age of the present applicant. Even in Jai Prakash Singh V/s State of Bihar and another, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379, Hon- ourable Supreme Court pleased to hold:
"Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious of- fenceare required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatorybail can be granted only in exceptional circum- stances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty."
19. The object of anticipatory bail is that person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. In present case, no any such sort of allegation or bias is found out it is needless to say that order of pre arrest bail is not a passport to the commission of trial nor a shield against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society as the alleged involvement of lage amount is yet to be traced out and amount has been siphoned and so far as it is an economic offence and there is involvement of money, applicant required to be visited class apart. In this regard the Court deems it fit to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujrat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364, the Court in para 5 has observed that:
"The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offend- ers who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is com- mitted with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined Community. A disregard for the interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner with- out fear of criti- cism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the Na- tional Economy and National Interest."
20. So far as the specific stand taken by the applicant to extend the benefit of parity as the co-accused, who have been released on bail, is concerned, this Court has considered the material collected during the course of the investigation to examine the applicability of parity. It appears that the co- accused was a contractor and a private person. Under Section 12, he has been arraigned as an accused in the complaint. The amount was transferred into his account, and thereafter, he had taken undue advantage and received the said amount. However, he has shown his bona fides by returning the entire amount transferred into his account and has filed an undertaking to this effect.
21. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing further is required to be recovered or discovered from the co-accused. In contrast, specific allegations have been leveled against the present applicant, namely that he destroyed or concealed 44 vouchers, which constitute material evidence for the prosecution, and these are yet to be recovered. In view of the above, the argument advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant may be released on the grounds of parity does not hold, as the applicant's role is significantly greater than that of the co-accused who was released on bail. In this regard the Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4720/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2025 undefined Court deems it proper to refer to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcment, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1486.
22. This Court is of the considered view that if the present accused is equipped with protective order, it would obviously adversely affect the case of the prosecution and the qualitative investigation as applicant is having trained legal mind and he will tamper with evidence and witnesses of prosecution and here two accused are still out of reach, who are directly connected with the present accused and other co-accused.
23. In the above facts and circumstances and considering the observations on the legal aspect of the matter, this Court has absolutely no doubt that if applicant is equipped with such an order before he is interrogated by the Police, it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy.
24. Having considered nature and seriousness of the charge, prima facie involvement of accused and possibility of tempering with evidences, it does not appear to be just and proper to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed. Rule discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Mar 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 26 21:51:52 IST 2025