IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
Dr. Rajesh Chandulal Shah - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 9278 of 2018
Decided On : 12-06-2018
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) –Criminal Procedude Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Indian Evidence Act,1872 – Sections 65 – Application for anticipatory bail at the instance of a Public servant anticipating arrest in connection with First Information Report – Whether accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence – Held, Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where court is prima facie of view that applicant has falsely been enroped in crime and would not misuse his liberty – If liberty is denied to accused to ensure corruption free society, then courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty – Once investigation is over charge-sheet is filed, court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant – Accused of indulging in corruption – FIR had been lodged spontaneously and further did not record any reason how pre-requisite conditions incorporated in statutory provision itself stood fulfilled – Application fail [Para 11, 13 & 21]
Facts of the case:
Application for anticipatory bail at the instance of a Public servant anticipating arrest in connection with First Information Report – Whether accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence.
Findings of the court:
Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where court is prima facie of view that applicant has falsely been enroped in crime and would not misuse his liberty – If liberty is denied to accused to ensure corruption free society, then courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty – Once investigation is over charge-sheet is filed, court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant – Accused of indulging in corruption – FIR had been lodged spontaneously and further did not record any reason how pre-requisite conditions incorporated in statutory provision itself stood fulfilled.
Result: Application fails
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an application for anticipatory bail at the instance of a public servant anticipating arrest in connection with the First Information Report bearing I-C.R. No.6/2018 registered with the ACB Police Station, District Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. One Manishkumar Ishwarlal Koshti lodged a first informant report dated 16.04.2018 at the concerned police station, inter alia, stating as under:
“My name is Manishkumar Ishwarlal Koshti, aged about adult, occupation business, residing at 63, Shiv Chamber, CTM Cross Roads, Ramol Road, Ahmedabad, Mobile Numbers 7874850282, 9909285835.
I dictate in person the fact of my complaint that I reside at the above stated address with my family and I earn my livelihood by doing work of signboard and other graphic related items on contract basis by the name of Kumkum Graphics.
I had undertaken a contract to put up a signboard of the L.G.Hospital, which is under the control and management of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and payment for the same was due. In this connection, I had met Mr.R.C.Shah, Superintendent of the L.G.Hospital on 21/4/2017 and 17/7/2017. At that time, Mr.R.C.Shah had demanded bribe in the name of commission for undertaking the procedure regarding payment of my bill.
On 17/7/2017, when I met Mr.Shah in his Chamber, I had stated Mr.Shah while discussing about payment of my bill that “I am giving you fifteen thousand for payment of this bill and for any new transactions, I would set the rate, if you say so.” Therefore, Mr.Shah told me, “You yourself do it.” Hence, I told him that, “Sir, as I told you, the reasonable rate would be around 10 per cent only. I cannot give more than this. I am also doing business. I was doing this as a side business. Therefore, he stated “Give me twenty at last.” Thus, Mr. Shah had demanded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the pending bill of the work done by me and he had compelled me to give commission of 10 per cent for doing each new work of mine. Thereafter, this officer had made a phone call to me and demanded a bribe of Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-. At present, I do not remember as to when he had made that phone call and I also could not make any recording in this regard. But, as I had not received the payment of the pending bill of my work of the signboard, I felt that if I should not give money as per the demand of Mr.Shah, my bill may be kept pending. As I felt that I will get the money of my pending bill early, I was compelled to give Rs.25,000/- as demanded by Mr.Shah.
Thereafter, on 20/07/2017, when I again met Mr.Shah, I gave Rs.25,000/- to Mr.Shah hand to hand in his chamber as discussed earlier. Mr.Shah received Rs.25000/- with his hand. I recorded that monetary transaction of Rs.25,000/- of bribe in my mobile phone. Moreover, before I gave Rs.25,000/- to Mr.Shah, I had given Rs.15,000/- cash to Mr.Shah in his chamber by hand to hand, but I could not record that transaction. If I had not given the money to Mr.Shah as demanded by him, I would not have received the amount of Rs.1,17,216/- for my pending bill. Therefore, I was compelled to give the bribe of total Rs.40,000/- to Mr.Shah as demanded by him to get the money of my pending bill. After paying the money of bribe, Rs.1,17,216/- of my pending bill was credited to my account on 18/09/2017.
Thus, as Mr.R.C.Shah demanded the bribe of Rs. 40,000/- from me for carrying out the process of payment of my outstanding bill, I paid him the said amount. As I informed about the same to my friend Rajendra Ramanbhai Sengal, he made an application to the Commissioner of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 03/10/2017 enclosing the C.D. of audio-video recording made by me. For that, my statement and the statement of my friend was recorded by the Vigilance Department, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
You showed me the application made by my friend on 03/10/2017 and one C.D. enc
D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran & Ors.
Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
State of M.P. & Anr. v. Ram Kishna Balothia & Anr.
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Dilip Prahlad Namade (2004) 3 SCC 619
State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain & Ors.
Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014)9 SCC 1
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 642
Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and Another (2012) 3 SCC 64
Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014) 8 SCC 682
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.