PARU RAJNISH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with FIR registered at C.R. No.10 of 2018 before ACB Police Station, Vadodara City for the offence under Sections 7(a) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not involved in the offence, but only on account of statement of co-accused, who is a consultant, the applicant is sought to be involved. It is submitted that at no stage, the applicant has ever interacted with the complainant and therefore, ingredient of the offence is not made out. It is submitted that case of the complainant cannot be believed as the applicant, in discharge of her duty, had already taken and communicated her part insofar as case of the complainant is concerned. The attention of the Court is drawn to the web-site extract of the account of the complainant where it is observed by the applicant that PF remittances have been made belatedly, which attract penalty under Section 14B and 7Q of the PF Act.

(3.) As against this, learned APP submitted that sufficient evidence is available on record. It is submitted that when another accused Mr.Hasmukhlal accepted the illegal gratification, he has called the present applicant-accused and confirmed that he has received the amount of bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant. This telephonic conversation between both the accused recorded in the trap panchnama clearly reveals the involvement of the applicant in commission of offence and therefore, since investigation of the present offence is at initial stage, if the applicant is given pre-arrest bail, it would materially hamper the investigating agency's right of the custodial interrogation.