STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VIRBHADRASINH GOVUBHA GOHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .A criminal complaint was lodged against the accused, Virbhadrasinh Gohil and Raymal Chhotabhai Rathod, respondents herein, for the offences punishable under Secs. 7,12, 13 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code on 26th April 1996. It is stated in the complaint that when a trap was caried out, respondents-accused saw the raiding party from a distance and they ran away with the bribe amount of Rs. 50.00 taken from one Mr. Yogeshbhai Bhagavatiprasad Vyas. The police officer could arrest the accused persons only after a period of 58 hours and a remand application was given by the investigating officer in the Court of the learned Special Judge concerned on 29th April, 1996. The remand was prayed for on the ground that muddamal of Rs. 50/- is yet to be recovered from the accused. Another ground that has been given is that panchnama is also yet to be prepared for getting the amount from the accused pursuant to Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. The third ground is that accused-respondents remained absent for about 58 hours and therefore, it is very essential to know as to where were they during that period and lastly it is stated that both the respondents were arrested on 29-4-1996 at about 6-00 hours and there were some injuries on the bodies and their uniform was also torn and therefore, it is very essential for the investigating officer to know as to under what circumstances they received injuries. The learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar, dismissed the application of the investigating officer on the ground that there is no possibility to get the muddamal property, i.e., Rs. 50.00 (bribe amount) from the accused and as such no remand can be given. This order was passed on the same day and is challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 165 of 1996. On 3rd May 1996 this Criminal Revision Application has come up for admission and this Court issued notices to the respondents and also notice as to interim relief returnable on 16th May 1996.

(2.) The learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar, granted bail to the accused- Virabhadrasinh Govubha Gohil while allowing the Misc. Criminal Application No. 320 of 1996 vide his order dated 4th May 1996 against which Misc. Criminal Application No. 2102 of 1996 is filed by the petitioner-State before this Court for the cancellation of the bail granted to the accused person.

(3.) I have taken both the matters as they have arisen out of the same complaint. The learned Counsel for the State, Shri S. K. Divetia, has contended that the learned Special Judge has committed illegality in releasing the accused-Virbhadrasinh Gohil on bail when the Criminal Revision Application No. 165 of 1996 is pending before this Court. In Criminal Revision Application No. 165 of 1996 notice was issued by this Court on 3rd may 1996. When the matter regarding granting of remand of the accused was pending before this Court, the Special Judge should not have enlarged the accused on bail. It has next been contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that the currency note of Rs. 50.00 was accepted by the accused Virabhadrasingh and was given to another accused Raymal Rathod and the bail should not have been granted in case the muddamal property is not recovered. It has lastly been contended that the learned Special Judge has committed an error in observing that the currency note has been taken away by another accused - Rathod.