KULDEEPBHAI PANABHAI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Sec. 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicants accused have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.05 of 2025 registered with Palanpur ACB Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offences under Ss. 7, 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 for short "PC Act"].

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants are falsely enroped in the offence though they have nothing to do with the offence. The applicants were the reason for failure of ACB traps dtd. 4/11/2021 and 10/11/2021 and keeping grudge of the same, complaint is registered in connection of failed ACB trap however, nothing is to be recovered or discovered from the present applicants. They have not accepted any illegal gratification or even the case of demand is also not made out against the present applicants. The applicants are not having any past antecedent and even they are ready and willing to join the investigation. The applicants were serving in the police department as Lok Rakshak and if they are arrested then their family has to face starvation and would adversely affect their blotless career. As now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicants and custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary and the applicants are ready and willing to join the investigation, he has requested to allow the present application and grant anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and submitted that the applicants are involved in serious offence of corruption though they are working in the police department as Lok Rakshaks. The allegation against the applicants is that to facilitate illegal transportation of passengers in Eeco Car being driven by the complainant, present applicants demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2500.00 per Eeco Car however, as it was Diwali time, after negotiation it was decided to pay Rs.2000.00 per Eeco Car as there were other five cars also and thus Rs.2000.00 was paid by the complainant to the applicants - accused and remaining Rs.10,000.00 being asked for by the applicants was recorded by the complainant and thereafter complaint was filed and trap was arranged however, the applicants did not receive the amount of illegal gratification during trap and the trap got failed. But looking to the conversation and video recording which was also sent to the FSL it appears that there was constant demand on the part of the applicants. Further, they have not joined the investigation though they were given the dates to give their voice sample to the FSL and since November, 2023 the applicants have been avoided the investigation. As the provisions of the PC Act are invoked, in such circumstances, the Court should not entertain such application for anticipatory bail as in order to invoke the provisions of PC Act, attempt itself is enough. Considering the aforesaid fact and complicity of allegation and nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is required. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application as custodial interrogation is required.