Gujarat High Court
Shobhrajsinh Kanaksinh Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 27 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9769/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 9769
of 2026
==========================================================
SHOBHRAJSINH KANAKSINH GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA T PANCHOLI(13067) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RAFIK LOKHANDWALA(5590) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. YUVRAJ BHRAMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 27/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule is fixed forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule for the respondent - State.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11194022210016 of 2021, registered with Surat City ACB Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 7(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The facts in nutshell are that Anjna K. Chauhan, Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, has alleged in her complaint dated 31.12.2021 that the original complainant, Jainex Sai, had submitted a complaint to Shri K. J. Chaudhari, Police Inspector, when he was Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 02:10:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9769/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined arrested with respect to prohibition case, at that time, the present applicant, Police Constable, Athwalines Police Station, met him and informed him that matters relating to PASA and Tadipar were within his portfolio, and demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for not initiating proceedings under PASA/Tadipar against him. It is alleged that Jainex told the applicant that since he was in custody at that time, he would meet him after his release. It is alleged that thereafter, upon his release, the applicant allegedly contacted him repeatedly and met him at Sneh Milan Garden, where the demand for illegal gratification was reiterated and, after negotiation, reduced to Rs.15,000/-. It is alleged that Jainex recorded the conversation and produced the same before the ACB authorities, and lodged a complaint against the applicant on 09.07.2020. It is alleged that a trap was arranged, however, when Jainex attempted to contact the applicant, the applicant neither answered the calls nor reverted, resulting in failure of the trap. It is alleged that on 10.07.2020 and 14.07.2020 also the trap failed and thereafter, on 15.07.2020, Jainex requested that no further trap be arranged, as there was no demand from the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant was thereafter called upon by the police to give his statement, giving him an opportunity to defend himself. It is alleged that thereafter, on the basis of the CD produced by Jainex, which allegedly contained conversations pertaining to the demand of bribe, the FIR came to be registered against the applicant on 31.12.2021.
3.1. Pursuant to aforesaid FIR dated 31.12.2021, the applicant had Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 02:10:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9769/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined preferred quashing petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1007 of 2022, wherein order regarding, no coercive steps would to be taken against the present applicant was passed by the coordinate bench of this Court on 28.01.2022. However, vide order dated 01.04.2026, the said petition was not pressed with a view to avail appropriate remedy, and thus, interim relief was also vacated.
3.2. Pursuant to thereby, the present applicant has preferred an application being Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Application No.2521 of 2026, before the Special Court established under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Surat, for grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected vide order dated 15.04.2026 by learned Special Judge, 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat. Hence, the present application.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Rafik Lokhandwala for the applicant would submit that in the present case, the trap proceedings had attempted on three occasions, however, have failed, and, neither demand nor acceptance has been established, and thus, none of the ingredients as stated in the FIR, more particularly, Sections 7(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, are attracted. He would further submit that after the trap having failed, the complainant himself has informed the police that the applicant would not demand any money from him and thus requested to stop further trap proceedings, this would indicate that there was no demand as the Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 02:10:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9769/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined complainant was trying to create a false trap against the present applicant who himself has involved in the case of prohibition. He would further submit that in the present case, there is no demand, acceptance or recovery, and hence, the allegations as alleged in the FIR are not attracted. He would also submit that the applicant had fully cooperated in the investigation pending the quashing petition and he is still ready and willing to cooperate, more particularly, when he is serving in the department from last 13 years and presently posted as Police Constable at Chowk Bazar Police Station, Surat City and except for the present FIR, his service record is unblemished. Learned advocate would relied on the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, below Exhibit 1, dated 17.10.2023, whereby the applicant had shown his willingness to give his voice sample for further investigation, and thus, he has already cooperated in the investigation, and he is working at Chowk Bazar Police Station, he would be readily available, and thus, argued to allow the present application.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Yuvraj Bhrambhatt appearing on behalf of the respondent - State would vehemently oppose the present anticipatory bail application and submit that though the traps have failed thrice, the factum of complainant having recorded the conversation between the applicant and himself was sent to the FSL, which matches with the voice samples, both that the complainant as well as the present applicant, and under the circumstances, there is a demand of Rs.15,000/- which Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 02:10:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9769/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined initially was to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, it cannot be said that the allegations as stated in the FIR are not prima facie surfaces on record during the investigation. He would further submit that merely on the basis of the traps having been failed, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 7 of the Prohibition of Corruption Act are not attracted.
5.1. Learned APP would relied on the judgment in the case of Devindar Kumar Bansal v. State of Panjab, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 493, more particularly, paragraphs 21 to 26 of the said judgment, to butter the arguments that when the prima facie case of corruption is made out, this Court could not be exercise its discretionary power, more particularly, when the voice samples of the complainant as well as the applicant are matched.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the papers available on record, it is incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in plethora of decisions of the Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 02:10:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9769/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merits of the case, which may prejudice the case of accused, should be avoided.
6.1. Before adverting the case on hand, it would be apt to note that the application addressed to the learned Special Judge, Surat, dated 30.09.2023 would reflect that the applicant had rejected to give his voice sample and had stated that he would give his voice sample only if the court ordered so, pursuant to which the order dated 17.10.2023 came to be passed below Exhibit 1. Further, the voice sample of the present applicant is matched, not only the voice sample of present applicant but that also of the complainant is matched, which would be evidence from the FSL report. Moreover, the applicant had cooperated the investigation pursuant to the stay granted by this Court while notice was made returnable on 28.01.2022, wherein it was stated that no coercive steps would be taken against the present applicant, however, now the circumstances have changed.
6.2. This is not a case, where it can be said that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. Considering the case on hand, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail, more particularly, when Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 02:10:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9769/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined there is no frivolity in the prosecution case, however, merely because the traps have failed thrice, the factum of demand of money which is prima facie surfaces during the investigation and as confirmed by the FSL report cannot be brush aside lightly. This Court has also considered the judgment in the case of Devindar Kumar Bansal (supra).
6.3. There are overwhelming circumstances appearing against the present applicant, which negates the exercise of discretionary powers vested with this Court. The applicant is at the stage of bail in anticipation of his arrest. Thus, considering the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected till date, also considering the fact that the applicant is police personal, the factum of hampering and tempering with the evidence cannot be denied, coupled with the fact that, the applicant is also facing charges of indulgence into corrupt practice attracting Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This Court is required to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of the public justice, more particularly, considering the nature of evidence available as on today, collected by the investigating agency against the present applicant. Merely, because the complainant is an accused of Prohibition Act, the complaint filed by the complainant cannot be termed as a frivolous, more particularly, when the applicant was demanding sum of Rs.15,000/- lastly, as it would be evident from the transcript placed on record by the investigating agency, so as not to implicate the complaint in PASA case by not sending proposal of PASA which according to the investigating agency was handled by Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 02:10:15 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9769/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026 undefined the present applicant.
7. In view of the aforestated facts and circumstances and discussion, after considering the material placed before this Court, strong prima facie case against the present applicant in the alleged offence surfaces on record. Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, hence, the present application stands rejected. Rule discharged.
(P. M. RAVAL, J) NITIN MAKWANA Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Tue Apr 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 02:10:15 IST 2026