Gujarat High Court
Rabari Laljibhai Arjanbhai Jethabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 11 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3057/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 3057
of 2025
==========================================================
RABARI LALJIBHAI ARJANBHAI JETHABHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAL S. UNWALA SENIOR ADVOCATE with MS TEJAL A VASHI(2704)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 11/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
[1.0] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 482 of the BNSS, the applicant accused has prayed to release him/her on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11194045250001 /2025 registered with ACB Police Station, Mahesana for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
[2.0] Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely enroped in the offence. The learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant retired in 2020, and the alleged incident, including the conversation and demand for illegal gratification, occurred in 2019. The demand was for ₹10,000 as illegal gratification. Repeated attempts to conduct a trap operation were unsuccessful, and the case is based on a voice spectrography test. Merely the demand being made by the applicant, and the offense being registered after retirement, indicates that nothing further needs to be recovered or discovered from the accused. There is no evidence Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:26:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3057/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined suggesting that the applicant made a demand for illegal gratification. In 2019, the applicant was arrested and produced before the Magistrate. Considering the aforementioned facts, no work was pending on his part at the time of the alleged demand. Furthermore, the applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation; he has already done so and provided a sample for the voice spectrography test. The applicant has no prior criminal record.Now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
[3.0] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the present application on the grounds that the applicant is involved in demanding illegal gratification. It is alleged that the applicant continued to engage in the legal activities through intermediaries, initially demanding ₹25,000 and subsequently ₹10,000. Such conduct is considered serious, and as a government servant, the applicant is accused of committing the offense of criminal misconduct. Based on these facts, the APP has requested the dismissal of the present application. Hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application.
[4.0] Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble 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 Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:26:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3057/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.
(1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty; (2) Applicant is retired from service in the year 2020 and alleged offence is registered after his retirement after a period of five years. As per the allegations made in the complaint in the year 2019, applicant has made a demand of illegal gratification. Here is the case of only the demand, Prior to that four times, the trap is failed and applicant was arrested in the year 2019.
Perusing the averments made in the complaint, it appears that applicant himself, on his own, did call to the complainant and said what he has to do as he is released on bail, except this no any material is collected during the investigation. Even otherwise the applicant has joined the investigation. Additionally, the applicant has cooperated with the investigation by providing a sample for a voice spectrography test. The offense in question is punishable by less than seven years. Furthermore, there is no evidence indicating that a pre- verification of the demand was conducted prior to lodging the complaint.
(4) no antecedent is reported against the applicant; (5) nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from [5.0] Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:26:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3057/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present application.
[5.1] This court has also considered the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022)10 SCC 51 and Md. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 892 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observe that whenever there is punishment of 7 years, then the court would be liberal to exercise the discretion. Further, by exercising the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C/under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the doors of remand by the Investigating Officer is open and therefore also this court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS").
[6.0] In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11194045250001 /2025 registered with ACB Police Station, Mahesana, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that applicant :
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 20/02/2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment or inconvenience is caused to the applicant;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:26:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3057/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week;
(g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigative agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail;
(h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section 483(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.-
[7.0] At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
[8.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) KUMAR ALOK Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:26:45 IST 2025