IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.
DHIRAJLAL HARISHANKAR TRIVEDI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9852 of 2021
Decided On : 24-12-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment - 2018) - Sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(d), 13(2), 12 – Seeking anticipatory bail - Offence of Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent - Criminal Conspiracy - Applicant has submitted that Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection aforesaid FIR and in this connection earlier application filed by Applicant before learned Sessions Court came to be dis-allowed - Whether it is valid or not for availing any illegal gain or not, for that, there is nothing on record - Held, Nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to applicant - Applicant shall remain present before learned Magistrate on first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by learned Magistrate - Without prejudice to right of accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and power of learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law - It is clarified that applicant, even if, remanded to police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order - Application is allowed.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mehul H. Rahot for the Applicant and learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the Respondent – State of Gujarat.
2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No . 11194070210002/2021 registered with ACB Police Station, Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(a), 13(2), 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment – 2018) and Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection the aforesaid FIR and in this connection the earlier application filed by the Applicant before the learned Sessions Court came to be dis-allowed. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the captioned order is passed in the year 2014 and the Applicant is transferred to other place from 2014. Thereafter the same order was confirmed by the Collector. But subsequently suo motu proceedings were initiated and the FIR is lodged against the Applicant in the year 2021. Further, it is contended that there is no antecedent. It is also urged by the learned Advocate that the Applicant has passed the order as quasi judicial matter and whether it is valid or not for availing any illegal gain or not, for that, there is nothing on record. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the present application may kindly be allowed.
3.1 Learned Advocate for the Applicant has heavily placed reliance upon the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench as under:
(ii) Criminal Misc. Application No. 8125 of 2021 dated 25.5.2021.
(iii) Criminal Misc. Application No. 9852 of 2021 dated 18.6.2021,
wherein the Coordinate Bench, while granting interim protection to the Applicant, has made the following observations:
“1. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with an FIR being C.R. No.11194070210002 of 2021 registered with Surendranagar ACB Police Station, District Surendranagar for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 13(1)(A), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment-2018) Act and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. It is the case of the applicant that after a period of 7 years from his retirement i.e. on 14.04.2021, one Rameshbhai Bhurabhai Angari, Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Deputy Collector, Chotila disclosed the commissioning of alleged offences before the ACB Police Station, Surendranagar, alleged to have been committed, during the period of 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2014. The applicant, the then Mamlatdar and ALT, Chotila and the then Resident Additional Collector, Surendranagar were arraigned as accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, in connivance with others have forged a letter dated 05.06.2014 of the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, Gandhinagar, to the extent that the Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms, has given approval to the alleged illegal orders of the then Mamlatdar and ALT, Chotila, whereas, the Assistant Commissioner has specifically held both the orders as defectives, illegal and recommended the Collector, Surendranagar to take into suo motu revision under Section 37 of the Ceiling Act and to quash the same. However, by using such forged letter as genuine were grabbed the valuable government land.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the Gujarat Land Ceiling Act, 1960 (for short “the Ceiling Act”) came into force on 01.09.1961, thereafter, the Ceiling Act was amended with effect from 01.03.1974, whereby the ‘bid land’ was also included in the definition of agricultural land. It is further stated in the FIR that the ceiling was fix
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.