ORDER :

P. M. RAVAL, J.

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 I-C.R. No. 02 of 2026, registered with Ahmedabad (Rural), ACB Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (PC Act) and Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

3. Filtered facts of the prosecution case are that a complaint was received by the ACB Police Station of one Rajendrabhai Budhaji Solanki and others and upon inquiry, it was found that the then Sarpanch namely Rekhaben Sanjaykumar Parekh and the then Talati cum Mantri namely Harpalsinh Vaghela, the present applicant, and others, in connivance with each other, misused their position and abused their powers and thereby, in the works undertaken by Dhamtavan Gram Panchayat for the Financial Years 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 relating and under various heads viz. Water Supply, Soil Filling, Festival Celebration etc. committed serious irregularities and embezzled public money in the sum approximately Rs. 1,55,23,420/- from the income of the Gram Panchayat. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused persons, though no expenditure were incurred towards the aforesaid works they issued bearer cheques in the names of their relatives / VCE of the Gram Panchayat and thereby, misappropriated Gram Panchayat money, for which, FIR in question came to be registered.

4. Heard, learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati appearing with Ms. Kajal D. Shah, learned advocate for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondent – State.

4.1 Learned senior advocate for the applicant submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR are vague inasmuch soil filling work came to be undertaken and there are certificates and appreciation letters from different government organizations. He submitted that during the inquiry before the District Development Officer (DDO), several workers had also filed affidavit stating receipt of payments. He would further submit that Salary Register of the employees/workers is also maintained wherein, the signatures of the concerned are also taken, which is very much available.

4.2 The learned senior advocate for the applicant would further submit that there were several complaints filed against the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and after due inquiry, the DDO removed the Sarpanch from the post by an order dated 31.12.2025, however, in the findings of the DDO, there is nothing against the present applicant to show any irregularities at the hands of the present applicant. On the contrary, in the said order, it is observed that it was the duty of the Sarpanch to take care of the financial affairs of the Gram Panchayat.

4.3 It is further submitted by the learned senior advocate for the applicant that ingredients of the offence under the PC Act are not satisfied so far as the present applicant is concerned, inasmuch as, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had demanded money from anybody and/or accepted the demanded money. Moreover, he submitted that essential ingredients of Section 12 of the PC Act are also not fulfilled as there is no specific allegation or fact to suggest that the present applicant abetted or aided the alleged offender. Further, there is no recovery or discovery at the instance of the present applicant.

4.4 The learned senior advocate for the applicant would further submit that so far as offence under the IPC is concerned, there is not an iota of evidence whatsoever, against the present applicant.

4.5 The learned senior advocate for the applicant submits that even otherwise the nature of allegations ar