IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 16489 of 2025 ================================================

KAUSHIKBHAI SHANILAL PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ================================================

Appearance:

MR HITESH S PADHYA(3877) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 15/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 05 of 2025, registered with Vadodara City Police Station, District: Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), (PC Act).

3. Outlined facts of the case of the prosecution is that on 20.11.2018, the de facto complainant had given a complaint before the ACB Police Station, Vadodara City inter alia alleging that he is a registered Government contractor of Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) and doing electrical and mechanical work by applying various tenders. Prior to six months before the said complaint, the de facto complainant had applied for a tender online, in which, since he was selected, he was contacted by the present applicant who was working as an Executive Engineer in the VMC and demanded Rs.3 lakh at the rate 5%, for making his endorsement. Thereafter, the de facto complainant, allegedly, gave Rs.50,000/- on 07.08.2018 and Rs.1 lakh thereafter on 25.08.2018. Despite such payment, since the Work Permission was not granted, the de facto complainant approached the applicant herein on 19.11.2018 to which, the applicant allegedly asked him to pay remaining amount of Rs.1.5 lakh and thereby, demanded bribe for performing his official duties and committed alleged crime, for which, FIR in question came to be lodged against him.

4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda appearing with Mr. Hitesh Padhya, learned advocate for the applicant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondent – State.

4.1 The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that for the offence, allegedly occurred in the year 2018, the FIR is registered only in the year 2025. It is stated that even other wise, from the copy of panchnama, it is clear that the trap was failed twice. Further, he submitted that the applicant has always cooperated in investigation and gave his voice samples also. The learned advocate for the applicant would further submit that it is after this many years of occurrence of alleged offence, no custodial interrogation is required inasmuch as no recovery or recovery has been made from the applicant. It is submitted that so far as file of the complainant is concerned, it was already sent and hence, the applicant had nothing to do with the same once it was sent. It submitted that the applicant has received many awards against which, the complainant’s role is doubtful inasmuch as the de facto complainant was served with several notices as well as was fined thrice. It is further stated that so far as FSL report is concerned, indisputably, not the instrument was sent for FSL but a CD was sent for FSL report. Last but not the least, the learned advocate for the applicant, without admitting anything against the applicant, submitted that if at all the alleged act was performed by the applicant, in that case, the same being in discharge of his official duties, prior sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act is required sans which, initial of criminal proceedings are void ab initio.

4.2 Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nat