BHARATBHAI MANUBHAI GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sanat Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the original complainant is not a Government Servant, therefore, under Section 332 of the IPC is not attracted. That the bribe was demanded from the complainant and complainant has denied for the same. That the CC TV footage is available. It is further submitted that applicant is not likely to be flee away. At this stage no custodial interrogation is required. During the course of arguments he has suggested if Court is not incline to grant the anticipatory bail in that case specific directions be issued to the Investigating Officer as regards to the compliance of Judgment of Arneshkumar delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) Learned APP Mr. Patel submitted that the complainant was working to control the traffic so, he is said to be a Government Servant. Therefore, no anticipatory bail is required to be granted and dismiss the application.

(3.) Considering the facts and circumstance, the following order is passed. This application is required to be disposed of with a direction that the Investigating Officer is directed to comply with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar & Anr, reported in 2014(8) SCC 273, which reads as under: