The Gujarat High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the public GST inspector alleged of corruption.
The applicant, Arora prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered for the offense punishable under Sections 12, 7(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
That applicant is appointed as the Inspector in the office of the Central GST at Surendranagar and is serving in the said Department since the year of 2016.
That an FIR is lodged by the complainant, Mr. Narendrasinh Narsansinh Lakum alleging that he is having a shop in the name of Bhavani Trading Company, which is situated at village Chuda and another shop under the name and style of Patel Agency at Limdi and a third shop is also owned by the informant, which is in the name of his son under the name and style of Bhaani Axi Business at Borna.
The accused had talked with the informant and it was made to understand that if any legal formalities are not to be done, the informant would pay a sum of Rs.75,000/ to the accused persons.
The informant did not want to pay the amount of bribe and, therefore, lodged a complaint with the ACB Police Station, Surendranagar.
The amount of illegal gratification accepted by the accused was caught by the raiding party as they were in collision in the commission of offence and as were connected in the commission of offence, a complaint was registered against them. Video recording was used in the entire proceedings.
The single-judge bench of Justice B.N. Karia while dismissing the application for anticipatory bail noted that the applicant has been charged with the offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the investigation is at a very crucial stage. No exceptional or special circumstances have been pointed out by the learned applicant for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail.
At this stage, the advocate for the applicant made a request that the interim protection earlier granted may be extended for a reasonable time for approaching the Higher forum.
“Considering the request made by learned advocates for the applicant, let interim protection be continued for the period of one month for challenging the order of this court by the applicant before the Higher Forum,” the court said.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment