Gujarat High Court
Shankardan Keshubhai Langa vs State Of Gujarat on 31 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8722/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 8722 of 2025
==========================================================
SHANKARDAN KESHUBHAI LANGA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAL S. UNWALA, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR ABHISHEK
M MEHTA(3469) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MR TRUPESH
KATHIRIYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 31/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11216008230197 of 2023 registered with Gandhinagar Sector-7 Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 168, 193, 196, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri. Jal S. Unwala appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Abhishek M. Mehta for the applicant. He submitted that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 11.07.2023 and since then he is in custody. The investigation of the offence is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, the applicant has undergone Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8722/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined incarceration for a period of more than two years. The prosecution has cited as many as 49 witnesses in the charge- sheets filed in the present case and out of them, till date, only 11 witnesses have been examined. Having regarding the number of witnesses yet to be examined by the prosecution in the trial, there are no chances of the trial getting over in the near future. He further submitted that earlier the applicant had preferred a Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.21484 of 2023 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2024. The said order was carried by the applicant before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court had also dismissed the SLP filed by the present applicant against the order of this Court. He further submitted that, after the dismissal of the earlier application filed by the applicant, the prosecution has dropped Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act from the charge-sheet filed against the applicant and therefore the allegations as regards corruption made against applicant in the present FIR are not required to be taken into consideration while considering the present application. He further submitted that the applicant is alleged to have passed an order dated 13.09.2019 with some ulterior motive. However, till date the order in question has not been carried in appeal by the Respondent State and the same still holds the field. He further submitted that the applicant while passing the order dated 13.09.2019 had relied upon the report of DILR and the order passed by the applicant was in consonance with the said report. However, for the reason best known to prosecution, the then DILR who had submitted the report has not been arraigned as an accused in the present offense. He further submitted that the witnesses upon whose Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8722/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined statements the prosecution is relying upon, in their initial statements had stated nothing about the involvement of the present applicant in the offense. However, in their statements recorded subsequently, they have made allegations against the present applicant. He further submitted that the prolonged incarceration of the present applicant pending the trial would vitiate the Fundamental Right of the applicant to liberty. He therefore submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions. Learned advocate has sought to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia V/S Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920.
3. Learned learned public prosecutor Shri Hardik Dave appearing for the Respondent State submitted that this is the successive application filed by the present applicant after dismissal of the earlier application and there being no change in circumstances, the present application is not maintainable. He further submitted that the order passed by this court in CRMA No.21484 of 2023 has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. So far as the aspect of delay in trial is concerned, he submitted that till date, 11 witnesses have already been examined and thus the trial of the offense is in progress. The delay caused in trial cannot be attributed to the prosecution. In fact, it is the other side who is resorting to the dilatory tactics. He further submitted that though there are 49 witnesses cited by prosecution in the charge-sheets, the prosecution intends to examine only 30 witnesses in total and out of them, 11 witnesses have already been examined. Thus, the completion of trial is not Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8722/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined likely to take much time. He further submitted that as observed by this Court in its earlier order, there is enough material on record to indicate that the applicant had passed the order in question with an ulterior motive and had also received some illegal gratification for the same. As regards the aspect of deletion of Section 13(1)(b) from the charge-sheet, he submitted that the same was deleted as a separate FIR with regard to the disproportionate assets had already been registered against the present applicant. Therefore, merely deletion of the said Section from the charge-sheet would not reduce the gravity of the offense. He further submitted that the applicant was working as a high ranking official i.e. collector of a district and is therefore a very influential person. It had also come on record that in the past, it was noticed that the applicant has used influence over police officials and therefore there are more chances that if released on bail that the applicant will use his influence over the other witnesses of prosecution. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.21484 of 2023 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2024. While dismissing the said application this Court had made the following observations:
"5. Heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the material available on record. In present case, the FIR came to be lodged on 17.05.2023 for the irregularities allegedly committed by the present applicant while he Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8722/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined was posted as Collector, Gandhinagar for the period commencing from 06.04.2018 to 30.09.2019. From the record, it appears that certain irregularities had come to the notice of the State Government, and therefore, the State Government had assigned a preliminary inquiry. The Inquiry Officer, after detailed preliminary inquiry, had found some substance to the effect that the present applicant had misused his position for his personal gain and had passed several orders against the provisions of law and on the basis of the report of the preliminary inquiry dated 06.04.2023, the present FIR has been lodged. The present FIR pertains to land admeasuring 30,431 Sqr. Mtrs. situated at Village: Pethapur, Tal:Gandhinagar, Dist: Gandhinagar. The present applicant while acting as Collector, Gandhinagar had exercised the powers under Section 37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and had held the said land to be belonging to the private persons though as per the revenue record, the said land was unnumbered and belonged to the State Government. From the record, it also appears that in the Year-2014, the interested persons had applied to the Mamlatdar for holding that the land belonged to them, however, the Mamlatdar, vide order passed by him in the Year-2014 had rejected the claims made by the said persons. Against the said order passed by the Mamlardar, the said interested persons had filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector had also rejected the claim of the said persons against which, the said persons had approached the Collector. The Collector, after hearing the parties, had remanded the proceedings to the Deputy Collector and even after remand, the Deputy Collector, in the Year-2015 had again rejected the claim of the said interested persons. In the Year-2019, the applicant had taken the order of the Deputy Collector, which was passed in the Year-2015 in suo-motu revision under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and had held the land to be belonging to the said interested person. As per the allegations, the present applicant had Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8722/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined done so for some personal gain of illegal gratification. The prosecution seeks to rely upon the statement of one Rajendrabhai Hemubhai Gadhavi. The said witness, in his statement dated 23.07.2023 has stated that in the month of August-2019, the matter was discussed with the present applicant and the present applicant had agreed to pass an order in favour of the interested persons if they paid sum of Rs.1 crore towards illegal gratification to him. After some negotiation, the amount was settled at Rs.85 lacs, and thereafter, the applicant had passed the disputed order dated 13.09.2019, and thereafter, on 18.09.2019, he had paid sum of Rs.85 lacs to the Son in Law of the present applicant viz. Sureshbhai Gadhavi.
6. It is the case of the present applicant that the Rajendrabhai Hemubhai Gadhavi had given the statement before the police on 19.07.2023 also, wherein he has not stated anything about payment of illegal gratification to the present applicant. However, the record further indicates that the Investigating Agency has recorded the statement of one Sureshbhai Vijaydan Gadhavi, who happens to be the brother in law of the present applicant. This witness, in his statement, has stated that the present applicant was due to retire from service with effect from 30.09.2019 and about 10 to 12 days prior there to, the present applicant had called him up and had informed him that one Rajendra Hemubhai Gadhavi, Amarsing Raba and one another person would come and pay Rs.85 lacs in cash to him and the applicant had given address of Sureshbhai Hemubhai Gadhavi to the said persons. Accordingly, the said persons had gone to this witness Sureshbhai Vijaydan Gadhavi and had paid Rs.85 lacs in cash to him. Thus, even if the statement of Rajendra Gadhavi dated 23.07.2023 is not believed, the fact remains with the sum of Rs.85 lacs was received in cash by witness Sureshbhai Vijaydan Gadhavi on behalf of present applicant. In that case, it is is for the present applicant to Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8722/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined explain as to what this amount of Rs.85 lacs meant for. No such explanation is coming forth from the entire record. The applicant, who was working on the responsible post of Collector, was expected to act in the interest of the State and public at large and ought not to have passed the order dated 13.09.2019 which is the subject matter of the present FIR. By the said order, the applicant has allotted the land admeasuring 30,431 Sqr.Mtrs. to be belonging to the interested person though from the revenue record, the land belonged to the State Government. Thus, the present applicant prima facie appears to have acted contrary to the interest of the State and the public at large for personal gains. The record further indicates that the present applicant while acting as Collector, Gandhinagar has passed several other controversial orders exercising his powers as Collector and separate FIRs have also been lodged with regard to the said orders.
7. The record also indicates that the applicant came to be granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, Godhara in one of the offences registered against him. While ordering him to enlarge on anticipatory bail, the concerned Court had imposed condition of marking his presence before concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant had not complied with the said condition and had not remained present before the concerned Investigating Officer. However, the applicant in collusion with certain police officers, had created some forged documents to show that he had remained present before the concerned Police Authorities. This conduct on the part of the present applicant is not befitting an officer, who had retired from the post of Collector of the District."
5. The said order was carried by the present applicant to the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) diary No. 38264 of 2024. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8722/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined dated 12.09.2024 had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the applicant. Thus the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Application has been confirmed.
6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the applicant has pressed it to service the ground of delay in trial for seeking bail in the present application. However, it is an admitted position that the trial of the offense is in progress and 11 witnesses have already been examined. As stated by learned public prosecutor, prosecution wants to examine only 30 witnesses in total during trial and out of them 11 witnesses have already been examined. Therefore, 19 more witnesses are required to be examined by prosecution now. Having regard to material available on record, the delay if any caused in trial cannot be attributed to prosecution as well.
7. It is also argued on behalf of the applicant that the order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the applicant which is the subject matter of the FIR, has not been carried in revision or appeal by the Respondent State. Learned public prosecutor has informed this Court that the said order has been challenged by the State by taking recourse to appropriate proceedings and the same has already been stayed.
8. It is alleged against applicant that while working as the Collector of District-Gandhinagar, he has received an amount of rupees 85 lakhs through his brother-in-law towards illegal gratification for passing the order dated 13.09.2019. It is contended that, on behalf of the applicant that Section 13(1(b) Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8722/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined has been deleted from the charge-sheet by prosecution. It is required to be noted in this regard that charge-sheet came to be filed against the present applicant in offense punishable under Sections 409 and 219 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)
(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act out of which, the prosecution has sought to delete only Section 13(1)(b) of the Act from the charge-sheet and too because a separate FIR as regards disproportionate asset has been registered against the present applicant. Therefore merely deletion of the said Section from the charge-sheet cannot be said to be a change in circumstance which would entitle the applicant for grant of bail nor the said deletion would lessen the gravity of the offense which is alleged against the applicant.
9. Having regard to these facts, no case is made out. The application is dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) AHS Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:45:20 IST 2025