Tatyasaheb Vinayak Dhere vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Facts

The applicant, Tatyasaheb Vinayak Dhere, a Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was based on a complaint by Mr. Ramsanjivan Dube, who faced GST dues from his suppliers and was advised to file an appeal requiring a 10% pre-deposit. The applicant allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 13 lakhs and threatened to seal the informant's business and residence. The informant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, leading to a trap where an accused no. 2, a Tax Consultant, was apprehended. The applicant, who was present at a hotel during the raid, apprehended arrest and filed for anticipatory bail after his pre-arrest bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court on March 20, 2025.

Held

The Court held that a prima facie case was made out against the applicant, warranting the denial of anticipatory bail. The Court considered the recorded telephonic conversation, which clearly indicated the applicant demanding Rs. 15 lakhs from the informant to settle GST dues. The Court also found it unusual for a Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax to make calls to individual taxpayers for GST recovery and noted the applicant's admitted meetings with the informant and accused no. 2 in a public place (hotel) on at least two occasions. Relying on Supreme Court judgments in Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma, the Court emphasized that custodial interrogation can be a ground to decline anticipatory bail and that a prima facie case and the nature/severity of the offense are paramount. The Court concluded that the applicant's physical presence for interrogation was necessary for the completion of the investigation, and there was a possibility of the applicant pressurizing witnesses or tampering with evidence. Therefore, no case was made out to grant protection, and the anticipatory bail application was rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether a prima facie case is made out against the applicant for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, warranting the denial of anticipatory bail, considering the recorded telephonic conversation and alleged demand of bribe? (Section 7, 7(a), 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant, a government servant, argued that his meetings with the informant were to help him and recover GST dues, possibly through an amnesty scheme. He claimed he was not present during the raid, did not collect any cash, and was ready to cooperate with the investigation, thus custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Revenue's Arguments: The State argued that recorded telephonic communication showed the applicant demanding Rs. 15 lakhs to settle GST issues. The State contended that the applicant's meetings with the informant in a hotel, along with accused no. 2, were suspicious and required interrogation to ascertain if the money was for himself or other officers, and if similar demands were made from others. The State emphasized the need for inquiry to complete the investigation and recover GST dues owed to the government.