Ramkishor Shrinarayan Mina vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court allowed the application for regular bail. It noted that the demand for the amount was made by the co-accused, Inspector Gurvindersingh, when the complainant visited the CGST, Vapi office. The applicant had demanded Rs. 20,000/- on behalf of the co-accused. The Court also observed that the raid had been conducted and the amount was recovered from the table of the co-accused. Considering that the witnesses are government witnesses, the possibility of tampering was deemed unlikely. The Court found the case fit for exercising discretion in favour of the applicant, taking into account the facts and circumstances and the time the trial would take to conclude. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, subject to specific conditions including not misusing liberty, not acting against prosecution interests, surrendering his passport, not leaving India without permission, and providing his residential address.

Facts

The applicant, Ramkishor Shrinarayan Mina, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with FIR C.R. No. 08 of 2022, registered with Valsad and Dang ACB Police Station for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant's counsel argued that no bribe amount was demanded, accepted, or recovered from the applicant. The complainant allegedly made a deal with CGST Inspector Mr. Gurvindersingh, and Rs. 20,000/- was recovered from the co-accused's office table. The prosecution, however, contended, citing a mobile phone transcript, that the applicant demanded Rs. 20,000/- on behalf of the main accused. The raid had been conducted, and the amount was recovered from the co-accused's table.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of demand and recovery of a bribe amount in connection with FIR C.R. No. 08 of 2022 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant argued that there was no demand, acceptance, or recovery of the bribe amount from him personally. He contended that the transaction involved a deal with a CGST Inspector, and the recovered amount was from the co-accused's table, suggesting the investigation was complete. The State argued that a transcript of a mobile phone conversation indicated a demand for Rs. 20,000/- by the applicant on behalf of the main accused, thus establishing a demand made by the applicant.