Rahulkumar Babubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 3092 Guj

          R/CR.MA/16306/2020                                 ORDER




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16306 of 2020

==========================================================
                        RAHULKUMAR BABUBHAI PATEL
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR K.B. ANANDJIWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MR YASH K
DAVE(10269) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

                               Date : 23/02/2021

                                ORAL ORDER

1. Learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta has submitted the report

received from the Police Inspector, ACB Police Station, Patan dated

18.01.2021, which is taken on record.

2. By way of present application, the applicant has requested to

allow this application by releasing him on bail in connection with the

FIR being I­CR. No. 8 of 2020 registered with the ACB Police Station,

Palanpur for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) and

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Anandjiwala for the

applicant and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent­

State.

R/CR.MA/16306/2020 ORDER

4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the

applicant that the basic ingredients of demand, acceptance and

recovery of the alleged money are missing in the complaint and

therefore, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not at

all made out against the present applicant. It is submitted that the

investigation is over and the charge­sheet is already filed. In the

charge­sheet also no incriminating evidence or material is available

against the present applicant. The applicant is innocent and is falsely

implicated in the offence which was not committed by the applicant. It

is further submitted that a loan was given by the present applicant to

the complainant which was returned back, and therefore, he should

be given an opportunity and he may be enlarged on bail. In support of

his submissions, learned Advocate for the applicant has relied upon

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra

v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012]1 SCC 40.

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent­State has

opposed the grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of

the offence. He has strongly objected the submissions made by the

learned Advocate for the applicant and submitted that prima facie the

involvement of the applicant in the offence is clearly made out by the

prosecution. That, at the time of committing the offence the applicant

was serving as a Section Officer with the State Government and had

R/CR.MA/16306/2020 ORDER

demanded Rs. 2,00,000/­ from the complainant. The said amount

was received in two installments of Rs. 1,50,000/­ by the present

applicant within a period of four months and thereafter a demand of

remaining amount Rs. 50,000/­ was made by the applicant from the

complainant. It is further submitted that Rs. 7,800/­ was adjusted by

the applicant in getting registration of his motor car, Hyundai Verna

and further remaining amount of Rs. 42,000/­ was demanded by the

applicant. The complainant had made a recording of the applicant

making demand of bribe money. During the course of panchnama,

applicant was caught red handed by accepting an amount of Rs.

42,000/­. That while deciding the bail application of the present

applicant, learned Sessions Judge has recorded the transcript of the

conversation made between the present applicant and the

complainant and observed that serious offence is committed by the

applicant, therefore no liberty can be granted. Hence, learned APP

requested to dismiss the application of the applicant. It is further

submitted by the learned APP that apart from the present offence,

another offence is registered with Banaskantha, ACB Police Station,

Palanpur as C.R. No. I. 8 of 2020 for the offence punishable under

Sections 7, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988, and hence also the prayer made by the applicant cannot be

accepted. Hence, it was requested by the learned APP appearing for

the respondent­State to dismiss present application of the applicant.

R/CR.MA/16306/2020 ORDER

6. Having gone through the facts of the case and the submissions

made by the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant as well as

the learned APP for the respondent­State, it appears that the

impugned complaint was filed against the present applicant/accused

for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the ACB Police Station,

Palanpur on 08.08.2020. As per the contents of the complaint, the

complainant was engaged in the R&B Department of Deodar since last

eight years in a construction work. As per the tender issued by the

government, he was working with the department. The payment was

received by the complainant after the applicant checked the work

given and cheques were issued by the Sub­Division Office of Deodar.

As per the contents of the complaint, since last 8 to 10 months, they

have received an order of forest cutting on cross road of Deodar

Section and therefore he had completed his work as per the order. He

informed the present applicant as he was working as a Section Officer

with the department. The cheque for bill amount of Rs. 2,80,967/­

was issued to the complainant in the month of March. Thereafter, the

complainant visited the office R&B, Sub Division at Deodar after two

days and on a meeting with the present applicant, the complainant

was informed by the applicant that his bill was sanctioned and as per

70% of the bill amount would come to Rs. 1,96,000/­ and as per 1.5%

amount would come to Rs. 4,200/­ total calculated to Rs. 2,00,000/­

would be paid by the complainant to the applicant. The complainant

R/CR.MA/16306/2020 ORDER

refused to pay this amount but thereafter it was agreed to pay Rs.

1,50,000/­ within a period of four months in two installments. The

remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/­ was to be paid to the applicant

separate note was made in a paper and from the Whatsapp No.

9427973533 one PDF file was sent and demand was made by the

applicant from the complainant. The complainant has produced the

PDF file from the mobile phone and screenshot of the same while

lodging the complaint. As per the complaint, on demand being made

by the applicant for registration of his second hand Verna Car, the

complainant paid Rs.7,800/­ on 08.06.2020 for its registration.

Thereafter, also demand of Rs. 50,000/­ was made by the applicant

from the complainant. On 05.08.2020, at about 20:00 P.M., demand

was made by the present applicant from his mobile no. 9724283998

for Rs. 50,000/­, upon which the complainant agreed to pay Rs.

42,000/­ after deducting the amount paid for registration of Motor

Vehicle from Rs. 50,000/­. The complainant recorded the conversation

made with the present applicant as he was not happy to pay this

amount of Rs. 42,000/­ . He lodged a complaint before the Police

Inspector, ACB Police Station, Patan. The investigation was carried

out by the Investigating Officer. At the time of raid made by the Police

Officer, panchnama was made whereby 15 currency notes of Rs. 2000

denomination and 24 currency notes of Rs. 500 denomination was

recovered from the possession of the present applicant. One transcript

dated 05.08.2020 was also produced on record wherein also demand

R/CR.MA/16306/2020 ORDER

made by the present applicant of the bribe amount was clearly made.

Learned Sessions Judge has also observed the same in the order

dated 13.10.2020 that the present applicant is prima facie involved in

the serious offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The bribe

amount given by the complainant and recovered from the present

applicant was seized by the police authorities at the time of preparing

the panchnama. In the present case, this court will not exercise its

powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as prima facie involvement of the

applicant is found in the offence and hence the prayer made by the

applicant is hereby dismissed. The judgment relied upon by the

learned Advocate for the applicant would not be helpful to the

applicant.

7. The present application stands dismissed.

Rule stands discharged.

(B.N. KARIA, J) SINDHU NAIR