TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Narsansinh Lakum on 07.02.2020 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 third shop is also owned by the first informant, which is in the name of his son under the name and style of Bhaani Axi Business at Borna. That first informant is selling grocery items, building materials and tobacco. That on 21.01.2020, the accused Nos.1 and 2 had visited the shop of the first informant situated at village Chuda and Borna and had inspected the shop and godown. |That aforesaid accused informed the first informant that they were keeping the goods in the godown situated at Borna without their permission and, therefore, has to deposit an amount of penalty to the tune of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs for the shop situated at village Borna. That in the shop situated at Chuda, it was found that GST Number was not reflected properly in the board, and therefore, it was informed that the complainant has to pay penalty of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs. That in all the first informant had to pay penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs. That first informant was called with the accounts at the GST office, and there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....innocent person. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged. There is no prima facie case against present applicant, so as to implicate him in commission of the alleged offence. That it is alleged in the FIR that the applicant and the other co­accused had a talk with the first informant and it was agreed that the first informant would pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/­ to the accused No.3 and since the first informant did not want to pay said amount, present criminal complaint is lodged. There is no iota of allegation that the applicant demanded money from the first informant or applicant accepted money from the first informant. That the accused No.1 i.e. Rajiv Hansraj Yadav and Mr. Ravi Bhavansinh Joshiaccused No.3 accepted the money from the complainant. Therefore, the ingredients of charging Sections are not satisfied. That the allegations made in the FIR are in respect of the offence punishable under Section 12, 7(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (for short "the Act"). The co­accused of the offence had approached this Court by filing an application for regular bail being Criminal Misc. Application No.5446 of 2020 which was withdrawn by this C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed APP to dismiss present application. From the record, it appears that one Shri Narendrasinh Narsangbhai Nakum, aged about 48 years, occupation: Business and agricultural, residing at Chuda, Nearby Pipaliya Well, Ta: Chuda originally residing at Borna, Ta: Limbdi, Dist: Surendranagar lodged a complaint against three accused persons namely (1) Rajiv Hansraj Yadav, GST Inspector (2) Gaurav Arora, GST Inspector and (3) Ravibhai Bhavanishankar Joshi, contractual basis peon, Central GST office. As per the contents of the complaint, complainant was running his business in the name and style of Bhavani Trading Company at village Chuda and running his another shop under the name and style of Patel Agency at Limbadi and his son was running his firm under the name and style of Bhavani Exhibition at Borna. He was mainly engaged in the business of grocery, cattle food, building materials and goods of tobacco. On 28.01.2020, accused no. 1 and 2 visited the shop of the applicant at Chuda and Borna and thereafter they went to goods godown of the complainant at Borna. Complainant was informed by them that without their permission, godown was kept by the complainant at Borna, and therefore, he w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pation in the offence. If we refer the transcript made between the complainant and the present applicant/accused, demand of illegal gratification was clearly made by the present applicant. This Court, in similar issue, in case of Rajesh Chandulal Shah versus State of Gujarat in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9278 of 2018, it is held in para 8 that; "Grant of anticipatory bail in corruption matters involving public servants should be in the rarest of rare cases. It is a settled position of law that neither anticipatory bail nor regular bail can be granted as a matter of rule. The anticipatory bail, being an extraordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional cases. It is only if the court is convinced, on the basis of the materials on record, that a public servant has been falsely involved or that the allegations of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification are with an oblique motive or tainted with malafides, that the court may consider to protect such public servant by grant of anticipatory bail. Why should a corrupt public servant, who is not only a menace to the society but a potential threat so far as the progress of the country is concerned, be shown any ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty" Present applicant has been charged with the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and the investigation is at a very crucial stage. No exceptional or special circumstances have been pointed out by the learned applicant for the applicant for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence cannot be sole consideration of the grant of bail as requested. While approving the judgment of Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., (2014)8 SCC 682, rendered by another Constitution Bench in Manoj Narula's case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, dealing with rampant corruption, has observed as under:­ "17. Recently, in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014) 8 SCC 682, the Constitution Bench, speaking through R.M. Lodha, C.J., while declaring Section 6­A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which was inserted by Act 45 of 2003, as unconstitutional, has opined that: (SCC pp. 725­26, para 59) "59. It seems to us that classification which is made in Se....