BHANUBHAI UMEDBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11195016210589 of 2021 registered with Deesa North Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offences under Ss. 406 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 167 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Ss. 13(1)(B) and 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused persons, in connivance with each other, had committed an economic loss to the Government by not paying the VAT taxes and in the records of book it was shown as if it was paid by the accused persons. It is also alleged that on doing so some of the accused persons being the Government officers, by taking bribe, had created the forged documents to that effect. These are the allegations leveled in the FIR.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is named in the FIR as accused No.26. The applicant - accused is the owner of Dharnidhar Petroleum. The applicant - accused had preferred an application seeking anticipatory bail before 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa, District Banaskantha, being Criminal Misc. Application No.71 of 2022 and the same is without considering the facts and circumstances, rejected by the Sessions Court vide order dtd. 5/2/2022.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted, on instructions, of the Investigating Officer, that the applicant has deposited the amount of Rs.27,87,000.00 on 24/3/2022.