JUDGMENT :

Ilesh J. Vora, J.

1. 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 the FIR being CR No. 08/2018 dated 24.04.2018 registered with ACB Police Station, Palanpur, for the offences under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) (disproportionate assets case) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Brief facts giving rise to file present application are t(sic)

2.1 An FIR dated 24.02.2018 came to be registered with ACB Police Station, Palanpur against the applicant, for a case of disproportionate assets under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2.2 Prior to FIR, an application was received by the authority from Jivabhai Velabhai Aankurya dated 24.10.2017, inter-alia alleging that the applicant herein Chamanlal Vaghela, serving as a Teacher with Talegad Primary School, Dist.: Banaskantha and being a President of District Primary Teachers' Union, Banaskantha, had committed the offences under the Provisions of Corruption Act and purchased various properties. Prior to registration of the FIR, the investigating agency had called for details from the applicant herein and accordingly, on the basis of the investigation, the IO calculated the income (from 2001 to 2016-check period) of the applicant at Rs. 68,69,290/- and also assessed the value of his property at Rs. 1,51,02,460/- and drew a conclusion that the applicant possesses assets worth Rs. 82,33,170/- more than his income.

3. The applicant apprehending his arrest preferred application before the Sessions Court, Palanpur, Dist.: Banaskantha, seeking Anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected vide order dated 12.07.2018. the learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the application observed that the offence being a grave in nature, the application is required to be rejected.

4. Heard learned counsel Premal Nanavati, assisted by Mr. Anmol Surollia, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for the respondent State.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Nanavati, submitted that the applicant is implicated deliberately in a false case of corruption with vengeance to cause untold misery upon him at the fag end of his career and now, he is retire and having an unblemished service of two decades; that the calculation of income and the disproportionate assets are done by the authority in a manner which shows non-application of mind and prejudice against the applicant; that the applicant at relevant point of time, was a primary school teacher and had cooperated in the investigation throughout; that prior to the FIR, one Jivabhai Ghelabhai submitted an application before the authority as the applicant was President of Union and there was enmity with him; that the applicant as a Primary Teacher did not have any control/power or authority over the recruitment of teachers and staff at the school and having no any bargaining power of misusing his post to take or give illegal gratifications inter-alia; that the documentary evidence provided by the applicant, is a complete explanation of his innocence.

6. On the other hand Mr. Manan Mehta, reiterating the facts of affidavit in reply filed by Mr. N.A. Chaudhary, PI ACB Police Station, Banaskantha, contended that, it is true that three times the applicant herein remained present before the authority, however, he could not provide the details of the income and as against the same, the investment and expenditure of him and therefore, on some of the issues like amount shown as loan, and payment made towards the properties, details of bank transaction, his custodial interrogation for effective investigation is necessary. In this background facts, learned APP urged that the application deserves to be dismissed.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the applicant was serving as a primary teacher in a rural area and during the cours