Gujarat High Court
Shailesh K. Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 25 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 4751
of 2026
==========================================================
SHAILESH K. CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHADRISH RAJU, ADVOCATE WITH MR BHAUMIK R DHOLARIYA,
MR SHAHIL A SARWANI AND MR SHAISHAV PANDIT, ADVOCATES for
the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI
DESAI
Date : 25/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Devender Kumar Bansal Vs State of Punjab reported in 2025 (4) SCC 493, in paragraph nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26 has observed thus :-
"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 Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined 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 in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to accused of grant regular bail to a public servant 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 unsavoury 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. 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 the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations.Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined
26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity. undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from 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."
2. This Court, in the light of the aforestated observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, shall now proceed to decide the anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant herein, who is apprehending arrest at the hands of ACB Police Station, Rajkot City in connection with the FIR, which came to be registered on 30.01.2026 vide part A of the C.R. No.11194019260002 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. The applicant by way of this application has stated Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined that, he is innocent and has been falsely arraigned as accused. The FIR does not attribute any specific role, overt act or his participation in the alleged offence. In the affidavit of the Investigating Officer itself, it is mentioned that, the conversation between the complainant and the accused no. 1 namely Ravikumar Sureshkumar Jangid, the complainant has stated that, the applicant is his enemy and hence, the applicant's name has been malafidely mentioned in the FIR. It is further stated that, the applicant has been falsely implicated due to admitted enmity and professional rivalry, which is evident from the recorded conversation and material on record. The applicant has also stated in his application that, since he has retired from the post of Income Tax Inspector and has an impeccable service record with no adverse remarks, the question of his involvement in the alleged offence does not arise. It was only because of the animosity with the complainant, the applicant has been falsely arraigned as an accused in the present case. The applicant has also mentioned that, he had neither demanded nor accepted Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined nor received any bribe amount from the original complainant. He has a good reputation in the society. He is a law abiding citizen and if granted anticipatory bail, he is willing to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any condition that the Court would impose. Hence, he has prayed to allow his application and grant him anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish Raju assisted by learned advocates Mr. Bhaumik R. Dholariya, Mr. Shahil A. Sarwani and Mr. Shaishav Pandit for the applicant. Mr Raju has reiterated the averments of the application and has stated that, the applicant is a retired Income Tax Officer and is not named in the FIR. He does not have any role to play in the offence as alleged by the original complainant. He was not present at the place of raid. The Investigating Officer has to show that, the applicant was connected with the demand, acceptance and receipt of bribe amount. According to Mr. Raju, at the most the applicant can be termed as a conduit Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined between the original complainant and the accused no. 1. There is absolutely no material to connect the applicant with the offence, he does not have any antecedents, during his entire service he had never faced any departmental proceedings, hence, only Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, would be applicable against him, which is punishable up to 7 years and if, that be so, the applicant is required to be given a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 and the guidelines of the judgement in the case of Arneshkumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 are required to be followed. Mr. Raju has forcefully submitted that, the original complainant in his chat with the accused no. 1 had mentioned the applicant as his enemy, hence, the question of facilitating acceptance of bribe from the original complainant does not arise at all. Thus, Mr. Raju has urged the Court to allow the application and grant anticipatory bail to the applicant subject to necessary conditions.
Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined
5. Mr. Raju in support of his oral submissions has relied upon the following judgements:
Abdul Mannan Mohd. Yusuf vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Anti Corruption Bureau reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 824;
Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje and Gajanan Shripatrao Salokhe vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1990) 1 SCC 299;
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 162;
Sudhir vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2016) 1 SCC 146.
6. Heard learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi on behalf of the respondent-State, who has strongly objected this Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined application and submitted that, on the day of trap itself there were exchange of phone calls between the original complainant and the applicant. The transcripts of the phone conversations between the applicant and the original complainant have been mentioned in the affidavit of the Investigating Officer, and the same transcripts also form part of the panchnama, drawn by the Investigating Officer. Hence, Mr. Joshi has urged the Court that, the Court should not show any leniency towards the applicant, who is a retired public servant and who has committed offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to Mr. Joshi, the Prevention of Corruption Act being special statute, the directions of the judgement in the case of Arneshkumar (supra) are not required to be followed.
7. At the outset, the accused no. 1, Ravikumar Sureshkumar Jangid, who was serving as Assistant Account Officer in Zonal Account Office at Rajkot, had demanded Rs, 80,000/- towards bribe to clear the arrears Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined bill of Rs. 4 lakhs of the original complainant. After negotiating, it was decided between the original complainant and the accused no. 1 that, the original complainant would pay Rs. 50,000/-, to get his work done, out of which Rs. 5,000/- were already paid, whereas the remaining Rs. 45,000/- were to be paid on 29.01.2026. The original complainant did not wanted to pay the bribe, hence had lodged a complaint before ACB Police Station, Rajkot and accordingly a trap was laid on 29.01.2026. However, the accused no. 1 had not come to receive the said amount on the said date and had informed the original complainant to get in contact with the applicant herein. Thereafter, the applicant had contacted the accused no. 3 Akshay Shaileshbhai Waghdiya, who was a peon in the Income Tax Office at Rajkot and had called up the original complainant asking him for the bribe money. Thereafter, once again trap was laid on 30.01.2026 and the complainant had spoken to the applicant who had sent accused no. 3 to accept the bribe amount and while accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 45,000/-, the accused Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined no. 3 was caught red handed. It has come on record that, while the original complainant and the accused no. 1 were having conversation as regards the bribe money, the accused no. 1 had also connected the applicant by way of a conference call and had made him a middleman so as to accept the bribe amount on his behalf.
8. Learned APP has drawn the attention of the Court towards the transcripts of the conversations between the original complainant, accused no.1- Ravikumar Sureshkumar Jangid and the present applicant. On perusing the transcripts of the conversations between the accused no. 1, the applicant, original complainant and the accused no. 3, on 29.01.2026, during the conversation between the accused no. 1-Ravikumar Sureshkumar Jangid and the original complainant, the name of the present applicant was mentioned by the accused no. 1, to which the original complainant had told him that, the applicant was his 'anti', he was his enemy and he would not be able to give him, however, the accused no. 1 had Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined asked the original complainant to speak to the applicant, to which, the original complainant had asked the accused no.1 to first confirm, hence, the applicant was connected via a conference call wherein, the original complainant had told the applicant that, it was decided to give to him i.e. the applicant, hence, the original complainant should hand over the money to the applicant. In reply, the applicant has stated that, the complainant should send it to him to which, the original complainant says that, how it would reach to accused no.1, as against which, the applicant replies that, it would all be taken care of and it was not his subject.
9. There was conversation between the original complainant and the applicant on 30.01.2026, wherein, the applicant had told the original complainant that, a boy had come to Rajkot to accept, however the original complainant was not in Rajkot and had told the applicant that, if he would permit then he would send it by Aangadiya firm on the next date, to which the applicant Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined had replied in negative and had told him that, he should not send it through Aangadiya firm and a boy was coming to accept and he should give it to him. Accordingly, the original complainant had asked the details about the said boy, and the applicant had told him that the boy would give him a ring.
10. There is also a second conversation between the original complainant and the applicant, wherein, the applicant is telling the original complainant that, he was not picking up the phone of the boy to which, the original complainant had told him that, he would pick up the phone and also asked the applicant to send the name and number of the boy.
11. Thereafter, a further conversation had taken place between the applicant and the accused no.3- Akshay Shaileshbhai Waghdiya on the same day i.e. 30.01.2026, wherein, the accused no.3 affirms the fact that he had received, to which, the applicant had told him that he Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined should not wait to have tea, and should leave the place.
12. There is also further conversation between the applicant and the accused no. 3, wherein, the applicant tells the accused no.3 that he should not go to the office and should leave.
13. Thus, from all these conversations, it clearly transpires that the accused no.1 had demanded money from the original complainant and had asked the applicant to accept the said money on his behalf from the original complainant, however, the applicant instead of accepting the bribe amount himself, had sent the accused no.3 to the original complainant, to accept the said amount.
14. The police had laid a trap during which, the original complainant had handed over the bribe money to the accused no.3, and while, he was counting the money, the police had caught him red handed and he had also stated Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined before the police that, he had come there to collect the bribe money at the behest of the applicant. After being caught red handed, the accused no.3 was made to call the applicant from his mobile phone, wherein, he had informed the applicant that he had received the money from Shailesh Waghela i.e. the original complainant. The accused no.1 was also thereafter arrested by the ACB Police.
15. This Court is not in agreement with the submission of learned advocate Mr. Raju that, the applicant has been falsely arraigned in the offence, which he has not committed. The original complainant having mentioned about the applicant being his enemy was only a passing remark. Considering the transcripts of phone conversations between the applicant, the original complainant and the accused no.1 and also between the applicant and the accused no.3, it is prima facie established that, the applicant was unequivocally and overtly involved in the demand and acceptance of the Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/4751/2026 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2026 undefined bribe amount at the instance of the accused no.1 through the accused no.3. The said bribe amount was recovered from the accused no. 3.
16. Thus, in the light of the facts of the present case and the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devender Kumar Bansal (supra), this Court does not find any mitigating reasons so as to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and accordingly this application is hereby rejected.
(UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) DIVYA Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by DIVYA PILLAI(HC00199) on Fri Mar 13 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 06:13:23 IST 2026