IMPORTANT POINT
Economic offences need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country, requiring a different approach in the matter of bail.

JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. This is an application by the petitioner, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ in brief), seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the offence registered as C.R. No. 11821011230942 of 2023, registered with ‘A’ Division Police Station, Dahod, under Sections 170, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that one Mr. Bhaveshbhai Rajeshbhai Bamaniya, who is discharging duties as Sr. Clerk in the office of Project Administrator, Dahod, lodged the FIR in question, wherein, he stated that it is his duty to prepare the orders of allotment of grant, salary bills, contingency bills etc. Online, on I.F.M.S. Software and put-up the same before Accounts Officer for sanction. It is stated in the FIR that pursuant to the registration of FIR, with regard to floating of a fake and bogus government office in the name of Project Administrator at Chhotaudepur, with Chhotaudepur Police Station on 26.10.2023, the Project Administrator, namely Smit Lodha, of the office of the complainant issued instructions to inquire, as to whether, any such incident of floating a fake Project Administrator office and misappropriation of government funds has taken place at Dahod or not.

2.1 It is, further, stated in the FIR that pursuant to issuance of the aforesaid instructions, one Mr. Pranav R. Vaghela, Accounts Officer, Office of Project Administrator, Dahod, Dated: 09.11.2023, which revealed that there were as many as six fake government offices were functioning within the district. The FIR reveals that by floating such fake government offices a misappropriation of the government funds to the tune of Rs. 18,59,96,774/- is alleged to have been done by all the accused persons, including the present petitioner, in connivance with each other. Hence, the FIR in question is lodged. Since, the petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR, he has filed the present petition.

3. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Bhargav Bhatt, along with learned Advocate, Ms. Poonam Maheta, appearing for the petitioner and learned APP, Ms. Patel, for the Respondent-State.

4. Learned Advocate, Mr. Bhatt, appearing with the learned Advocate, Ms. Maheta, for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he is falsely arraigned as an accused in the alleged offence.

4.1 It was submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Commissioner, Integrated Tribal Development Project, with the Office of the Project Administrator, Dahod, in the year 2018. It was submitted that, here, the petitioner was supposed to discharge his duties as per the directions of the Project Administrator, who would be either a GAS or IAS cadre officer, who would be instrumental in implementing various government schemes with regard to integration and development of the tribal.

4.1.1 It was, further, submitted that the petitioner was also given the additional charge of Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Dahod.

4.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Bhatt, referring to the facts of the case submitted that, as per the case of the prosecution or as per the allegations leveled in the FIR, as many as six fake government offices were floated in Dahod District and under the pretext of implementation of various government projects/proposals, totaling to 100 in numbers, are shown to have been implemented and thereby, a huge amount of Rs. 18,59,96,774/- is allegedly siphoned of by the accused persons in the name of the Office of the Project Administrator. However, he would submit that, as per the work-flow chart or in the decision making process, the petitioner is no where directly or indirectly involved, so as to attract the allegations of siphoning of a huge amount.

4.3 It was submitted that the petitioner was working under the supervision of Project Administrator, who was authorized to sanction and approv