IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – Pre-trial punishment is not required.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

This successive bail application is filed by the Applicant – Accused viz. Chandrakant Gunvantrai Pandya under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with I-C.R.No.15 of 2019 registered with ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad, District : Ahmedabad (City) for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(B) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 109 of the IPC.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Dipen K. Dave for the Applicant and learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta for the Respondent State through Video Conference.

3. The facts in nutshell, as per the main allegations against the applicant in the F.I.R. is that on 05.04.2019, Assistant Director, Field - 2, ACB, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad has filed a complaint stating that the order came to be passed by Assistant Director, ACB, Gujarat State against the applicant-accused viz. Chandrakant Gunvantrai Pandya, the then Additional Resident Collector, Surendranagar for making disproportionate assets and the complainant herein has made preliminary investigation and filed a complaint. As alleged in the FIR, Mr. Chandrakant Pandya has misused his post and committed irregularity and illegality and corruption for being wealthy and invested those wealth in movable and immovable properties in the name of his daughters viz. Radhik Pandya, Bhumika Pandya w/o. Jinalbhai Dave and Kamini Dhirajlal Acharya (Niece) and for making this disproportionate assets, Mr. Dharmeshbhai Manibhai Patel, Chandrakant Manibhai Patel and Suketuchandra Ranchhodbhai Patel have helped the accused-Chandrakant Pandya by taking cash from the accused and transferred the entry from their bank accounts. Therefore, the complaint was filed. In the year 2005 at Rajkot, the case of disproportionate assets was filed against the applicant, but, the complainant has not disclosed the fact that in the said case, after investigation, no offence was made out and therefore, final report was filed by ACB and it was accepted by the Ld. Special Court, Rajkot. Therefore, the complainant tried to hide the said fact from the Honorable Court.

3.1 That the applicant has taken divorce due to some personal reasons and they have two daughters viz. Radhika and Bhumika and both are married and living at Ahmedabad doing business by their own and are filing the income-tax returns also. It is also contended that the applicant has no concern with the properties of assets of his daughters as they are earning. As per allegations in the complaint, Dharmesh Patel and his wife Sonalben have given loan to applicant and his daughters as well as niece Kaminiben Acharya, but not clarified that they have given loan to whom and how much and they have not given loan to applicant but, have given loan to his daughters and niece. The applicant has no connection with the said loan as his daughters who are married and niece who is also married, are doing their own business and earning. Therefore, the applicant cannot be made responsible for the said loan in any manner.

3.2. That their property was also calculated for the purpose of considering and calculating the disproportionate assets. That section 13(1) (e) defines the said aspect. Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is reproduced as under for the sake of ready reference:—

“[(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—

(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resourcesor property disproportionate to his known source of income.

Explanation. For the purpose of this section, “Known source of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisio