Taralkumar Rashminbhai Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 3911 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Taralkumar Rashminbhai Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2024

                                                                                     NEUTRAL CITATION




      R/CR.MA/7613/2024                                 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2024

                                                                                     undefined




              N THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
             AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 7613 of 2024

==========================================================
                          TARALKUMAR RASHMINBHAI BHATT
                                      Versus
                                STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VIRAT G. POPAT, ADVOCATE for MR DHARM K RAVAL(10689) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. MAITHILI MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

                                 Date : 01/05/2024

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11203024240053/2024 registered with 'B' Division Police Station, Junagadh for the offences punishable under Sections 385, 389, 114, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat appearing for the Applicant and learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta appearing on behalf of the Respondent - State.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat appearing for the Applicant has submitted that initially the FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 167, 465, 467, 471, 385, 389, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/7613/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2024

undefined

Applicant has not been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The other offences under the IPC for which the Applicant is charge sheeted are bailable offences whereas the offences punishable under the provisions of of the Prevention of Corruption Act are non-cognizable offences. Moreover, necessary permission as required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act has not been obtained before lodging the present offence against the present Applicant. He further submitted that the only material which is collected against the Applicant during the course of investigation is in the form of the witnesses who themselves were involved in cricket betting and dubious transactions were found in their accounts, to the effect that the present Applicant had made whats app calls to them demanding forty to fifty per cent of the amount which was lying in their bank accounts, which were freezed, towards illegal gratification. Except these bare statements, there is no other material indicating such telephone calls having been made by the Applicant to these witnesses. Learned Advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat further submitted that; as per the case of the prosecution, the present Applicant had hatched a conspiracy for committing this offence along with his another colleague namely Mr. A.M.Gohil who has not been chargesheeted and report under Section 169 has been made against him. Therefore, the aspect of conspiracy has not been made out against the present Applicant. He therefore submitted to allow the present Application and enlarge the Applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

3.1 Learned Advocate for the Applicant seeks to rely upon the following judgment in support of his submission:

(i) 2014(0) AIJEL - SC 55767 - Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi Through CBI.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/7613/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2024

undefined

4. Learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the present Applicant being a Police Officer had misused his powers for his personal gain and a large scale conspiracy was hatched for recovering huge amounts of illegal gratification from various persons who were involved in cricket betting. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.

5. Herard lenared Advocats for the parties and perused the record. This is a classic case of abuse of power by a Police Officer while discharging his duty. The present Applicant was working as Police Inspector and at the time of offence he was posted as a Circle Police Inspector, Manavadar, District Junagadh. He along with other coaccused had hatched a conspiracy and as part of the said conspiracy, the details as regards the bank accoutns which were either owned or taken on rent by the persons involved in cricket betting and the details of dubious transactions in those accounts were collected. It was the present Applicant who had instructed his fellow officers and subordinates to get the details of dubious transactions found in such accounts. The record indicates taht as many as 619 such accounts were found out of which 368 bank accounts were got freezed by the present Applicant. The statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation indicate that the present Applicant had personally made whats app calls to these persons whose accounts were freezed and a demand was raised for the amount of atleast forty to fifty percent of the amount lying in such accounts towards illegal gratifications for getting the said accouts freezed or else they were threatened of lodging of a case with the Enforcement Directorate. It is sought to be canvassed by the leanred Advocate appearing for the Applicant that except the bare statements, no other material is available on record supporting such assertion. However, at the stage of bail, the statements of witnesses are sufficient to deal with an application

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/7613/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2024

undefined

seeking Regualr Bail. It is also sought to be contended that the persons who were cited as witnesses and to whom the present Applcant is alleged to have done calls, were themselves involved in cricket betting and were having a criminal record, and therefore, their statements are not reliable. However, merely because the witnesses whose statements were recorded during the course of investigation were invovled in cricket betting and there might be some criminal offences registered against them, that by itself would not render their statements unreliable at this stage.

6. The record further indicates that one Birju Shah who was operating a racket of circket betting from Dubai had sent a sum of Rs.28 Lacs to the present Applicant on 22.12.2023 through angadia and anohter sum of Rs.10 lacs was sent by him to the present Applicant from angadia on 28.12.2023 after deducting the amount of commission from the same. Thus, total amount of Rs.37,78,800/- had been recveived by the present Applicant from the said Birju Shah for unfreezing of his bank accounts which had been freezed at the instance of the present Applicant.

7. Considering the aforesaid aspects, no case is made out for exercising the discretion in favour of the Applicant at this Stage. The Application is dismissed.

(M. R. MENGDEY,J) J.N.W