In a recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court, anticipatory bail was denied to Alpesh Solanki in a case involving allegations of demanding a bribe. The case revolves around the unfortunate suicide of a bootlegger, as detailed in the court’s decision. This ruling sets a precedent in ensuring justice and upholding the law. Stay tuned for more updates on this case!
Facts
- Deceased applied for regular bail before the Session’s Court Ahmedabad but was rejected on 3rd August, 2023.
- Another FIR was filed where deceased was not named.
- Complainant alleged that applicant demanded Rs.3 lakhs from the deceased to avoid framing him in a case.
- Deceased allegedly paid the amount to the applicant.
- A new case was registered on 10th February 2024 against different individuals.
- Complainant alleged that applicant demanded Rs.10 lakhs from the deceased in relation to the second case.
- Deceased committed suicide on 23.02.2024 and wife filed an FIR claiming it was due to threats and mental pressure from the applicant.
- Petitioner’s counsel presented that deceased was a listed bootlegger with previous FIRs against him.
- Deceased was released on regular bail on 24th August, 2023, after filing a bail application.
- Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with a new FIR registered in 2024.
Arguments
- Deceased, who was a bootlegger, committed suicide after making a false video accusing the petitioner of demanding a bribe of Rs.10 lakhs.
- No past antecedents against the petitioner are recorded, and he has a flawless record.
- The petitioner, a PSI, had apprehensions about the deceased’s involvement in another offense during the investigation.
- No FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act is filed against the petitioner.
- The petitioner is available for investigation, a permanent resident of Ahmedabad, and has been diligently working in the police department.
- Allegations against Mr. Alpesh Solanki, who was granted anticipatory bail, were similar to those against the petitioner.
- The principle of parity should be applied in the petitioner’s case, as both the petitioner and Mr. Alpesh were similarly situated.
- The petitioner, a PSI serving with Viramgam Police Station, is accused of demanding a bribe of Rs.10 lakhs from the deceased to avoid arraignment in another offence.
- The video evidence of the deceased alleging the bribe demand could be treated as a dying declaration under section 34 of the Evidence Act.
- The petitioner is currently on the run and has not cooperated with the investigation, even failing to attend duty during the election period.
- The prosecution is awaiting the FSL report in this case, and there is a possibility of adding charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner.
- The actions of the petitioner, who is supposed to protect citizens as a PSI, indicate a breach of duty and a serious misconduct.
- The petitioner shot a video before his death accusing the petitioner of demanding the bribe, which led to his suicide.
- The judgment cited by the petitioner’s senior advocate is deemed irrelevant in the context of the bail application.
Analysis
- Investigation at crucial stage, granting anticipatory bail will adversely affect it.
- Prima facie link between petitioner and deceased’s suicide through a video recorded by the deceased.
- No reason to disbelieve the video recorded by the deceased before committing suicide.
- Anticipatory bail granted only in exceptional circumstances; petitioner’s duty as a protector turned into perpetrator.
- Deceased clearly names the petitioner in the video as the reason for the suicide due to a demand of Rs.10 lakhs.
- Discussion on merits and evidence avoided in bail application.
- Court must understand the exact role of the accused.
- Petitioner failed to establish a case for anticipatory bail.
- Anticipatory bail not granted as a rule; denial not a violation of Article 21 rights.
- Power under Section 438 CrPC to be sparingly exercised, especially in economic offences.
- Grant of anticipatory bail to be in exceptional cases after thorough consideration of various factors.
- Grant of anticipatory bail may interfere with the investigation, requiring caution by the court.
- The video recorded by the deceased can be considered as a dying declaration.
- Besides IPC Section 306, there is an element of demand for money by the petitioner who is a public servant.
- The High Court or the Court of Sessions must wise and careful in exercising jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Factors to consider for anticipatory bail include the nature of the accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of fleeing from justice, likelihood of repeating offenses, malicious accusations, and impact on a large number of people.
- Anticipatory bail is to strike a balance between personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to gather information.
- Grant of anticipatory bail in economic offenses can hinder effective investigation.
- Anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional cases and after thorough evaluation of available material.
- Judicial discretion must be carefully exercised on a case-by-case basis for anticipatory bail.
- Legislative intent behind Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard personal liberty while also considering societal interests.
- A delicate balance is needed to safeguard personal liberty and societal interest in granting anticipatory bail.
- Factors like over-implication in cases and genuineness of prosecution must be considered for bail decisions.
- Arrest is part of the investigation process to secure the presence of the accused and other purposes.
- Judicial guidelines for anticipatory bail should not be rigid or inflexible due to varying circumstances.
- No substantial difference between Sections 438 and 439 Cr.P.C. in granting bail.
- Reference to the judgment in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. for further understanding.
- The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a valid case for the grant of anticipatory bail.
- The petition lacks merit and does not justify the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail.
- Based on the presented evidence and arguments, the petition is dismissed.
- The court found no basis to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in this case.
Case Title: HITENDRABHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/6503/2024
