R/CR.MA/9012/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 9012 of 2025 ========================================================== KANTILAL CHELDAS PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR BRIJESH K RAMANUJ(9898) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 07/05/2025 ORAL ORDER RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat. [1.0] By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-05 of 2025 dated 17.03.2025 registered with Gandhinagar Police Station, District Gandhinagar for the offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. [2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the offence. The FIR is filed on 17.03.2025 i.e. after a delay of seven years. The applicant was serving as public servant and has retired and thereafter the complaint is filed. Applicant is not having any past antecedent and has already joined the investigation and even his voice spectrography test is also conducted and based on the said test and pre-recording material, complaint is R/CR.MA/9012/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 filed qua demand of said illegal gratification however, there is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Therefore, as the applicant has joined the investigation, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. [3.0] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that applicant is involved in the offence of corruption and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions, Court should not adopt lenient view in granting anticipatory bail in corruption offences. While present applicant was serving as public servant, he has taken undue advantage and asked illegal gratification of Rs.1500/- and one bottle of wine from the complainant for clearing the vehicle transportation bill of Rs.26,000/- of the complainant and therefore, as investigation is at nascent stage and custodial interrogation is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application. [4.0] Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in R/CR.MA/9012/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects. (1) FIR is filed after a delay of 7 years for the offence which allegedly took place in the year 2018 while the applicant was serving as public servant; (2) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty; (3) The allegation is that applicant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1500/- and trap failed however, thereafter he has joined the investigation and appeared before the FSL for voice spectrography test but the complainant did not turn up and there is no evidence of acceptance; (4) Now, nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the applicant; (5) Case is based on documentary evidence and there is no past antecedent; (6) No case for custodial interrogation is made out; (7) Similarly situated co-accused has been considered by this Court. [5.0] Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/9012/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present application. [6.0] In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-05 of 2025 dated 17.03.2025 registered with Gandhinagar Police Station, District Gandhinagar, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that applicant : (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 13/05/2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment or inconvenience is caused to the applicant; (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; (g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or R/CR.MA/9012/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 investigative agency, to investigate into the charges against the applicant; (h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the learned trial Court for a direction under Section 483(2) of the BNSS to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non- cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.- [7.0] At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. [8.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/05/2025 14:22:34