SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 648

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, J.
Archana Mukesh Raval – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondents
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 6233 of 2020
Decided on : 07-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR HRIDAY BUCH
For the Respondent: MR MANAN SHAH Adv

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 384, 114, 294B, 506(2) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(a), 13(2) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Punishment for extortion – Abettor present when offence is committed – Punishment for criminal intimidation – Expecting to be a public servant – Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest – Held, For foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and circumstances, peculiar to instant case, as have been analyzed hereinabove, applicant failed to make out a special case for exercise of power to grant bail and considering facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of anticipatory bail, without commenting on merits of case, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of Code to grant anticipatory bail – Therefore, this Court is of the view that anticipatory bail has no merits and is liable to the rejected – Application rejected.

JUDGMENT :

1. Apprehending the arrest, the applicant herein seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11205043200259 of 2020 registered with Bhuj City “B” Division Police Station, Dist.: Bhuj, for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 114, 294B and 506(2) of IPC and under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of present application is that, the applicant being public servant, has been charged with the offence under Section 7, 13, 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

2.1 The applicant herein presently under suspension, was serving as Police Sub-Inspector, Mahila Police Station, City: Bhuj, Dist.: Kutchh. On 04.03.2020, the informant Rohan Nipanikar and his friends were on long drive and when they were reached on University Road, Bhuj, his car was intercepted by driver of the applicant herein and beneath the driver seat, one transparent polythene phone bag filled with green colour leaves was found.

The applicant herein was in official car – Bolero Jeep. The driver of the applicant suspects that the material found from the polythene bag is narcotic substance. He told to the complainant that you have committed an offence under the provisions of NDPS Act. Driver Haribhai Gadhavi, take a seat in the informant car and directed the friends of the informant to sit in a police jeep. The driver – Haribhai, demanded Rs.1,00,000/- from the informant for settlement, otherwise, he threatened the complainant to book in the false case under the NDPS Act and after negotiations, the deal was finalized at Rs.50,000/-. The informant, managed Rs.15,000/- from his friend, who had credited the amount in the account of informant. The driver, the applicant herein, the informant and his friends were taken to ATM HDFC Bank, Jubilee Circle in the Bolero Jeep, where, the informant withdraw the amount of Rs.15,000/- and given to the driver in the Jeep itself. The driver - accused in the presence of applicant asked for the remaining amount and at that time, the applicant herein said that “ as a main person, when he could not manage the remaining amount, then, booked him in NDPS Case”. The Bolero Jeep along with all persons again driven to the spot where the car of the informant was parked. The informant was in scared and again tried to manage Rs.15,000/- from his employer and friends. The driver Haribhai directed the informant to pay the said amount through Google Pay and accordingly, payment was made by the informant in the account of co-accused. The driver clicked the photographs of the informant, polythene bag and car and said to the informant that he should pay Rs.20,000/- remaining amount by tomorrow before noon, otherwise, case under the provisions of NDPS Act would be registered against him. On the next day, the accused demanded thrice the remaining amount. The informant made inquiry about the driver, who is H.P. Gadhvi, serving with the police Department. The informant called him near ICICI Bank for remaining amount and at about 10-00 pm, he saw the informant and his friends standing opposite side of the road, however, he did not turn up for taking remaining amount.

2.2 In the aforesaid facts, the informant filed an FIR against accused driver Haribhai Gadhvi and one lady constable, for alleged criminal intimidation and extortion, as a result, the FIR came to be registered under Sections 384, 114, 294(B) and 506(2) of the IPC. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the police constable driver was arrested and during his interrogation it reveals that the applicant herein being a PSI, was accompanied to him and her involvement was there in the alleged conspiracy of demanding illegal gratification and she was part of design for obtaining illegal gratification. The whole incident

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top