“There Is Every Chance To Mislead The Case”- Gujarat HC Denies Bail To Former IAS Officer Pradeep Sharma In Land Allotment Case
The Gujarat High Court has rejected the bail application of former IAS officer Pradeep Sharma in land allotment case, saying that there is every chance to mislead the case.
Pradeep had preferred an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 217, 120B, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Divyesh A. Joshi said, “It is pertinent to note that in the recent times, there was an increase in socio economic offences in the country. These are the offences which are solely committed for personal gains. These crimes are affecting every part of the country’s economic structure and wrecking the people’s faith in the system. In the following circumstances, the person is very influential and there is every chance to mislead the case. So in such cases bail should not be given. Allowing bail application depends upon the nature of the offence and related circumstances.”
Advocate R.J. Goswami appeared on behalf of the applicant while Additional Advocate General Mitesh Amin appeared on behalf of the respondent.
In this case, the complainant being authorized by the Office of the Collector & District Magistrate, Bhuj, had filed a complaint pursuant to the illegalities committed by the then Collector, Kachchh-Bhuj while granting N.A. Permission in respect of the parcel of land admeasuring 1 Acre 38 Gunths, out of the total area of the land admeasuring 5 Acre 38 Gunthas of Survey No.709, Government Tra. Survey No.870 situated at Moje Bhuj City, Taluka: Bhuj. He alleged that the applicant, a retired I.A.S., who had worked as the Collector & District Magistrate, Bhuj from the period between 2003 and 2006 was the custodian of the land in question.
It was alleged that the applicant had, in connivance with the other co-accused, just with a view to get some undue monetary benefit, performed his duties dishonestly and allotted the government vest land in favour of the other co-accused in a less price compared to its actual value by making illegal conversation of the land from non-agricultural to residential and thereby committed criminal breach of trust to the Government by misusing his powers in an illegal and arbitrary manner which caused a loss of crores of rupees to the Government exchequer. Hence, an FIR was filed against him and he sought bail before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the arguments of both sides observed, “… it appears from the record that the applicant while working as the Collector at different places has committed various irregularities by illegally allotting the government vest lands to the interested persons. and in the case on hand also, the entire record indicates that the applicant-accused had shown undue favour to the accused No.3 by allotting the land to him which was not even allotable one and thereby abused the power of his post and position. It also appears from the statement of one Sanjaykumar Mohansinh Bariya that the applicant-accused had received certain amount for doing a particular work which is contrary to law as well as various resolutions and circulars issued by the Government.”
The Court took note of the fact that the applicant-accused although knowing very well that there was a railway line as well as a public road passing through the land in question, yet by ignoring such a vital aspect, had proceeded to pass the order of allotment in favour of the co-accused.
“So far as the issue of sanction is concerned, even otherwise without discussing on the merit of the case as trial has already been commenced, the applicant can raise the question before the trial whether the sanction is necessary or not. Furthermore, the said issue is also at large before the Larger Bench of the Apex Court and therefore touching the issue of sanction at this stage would be a futile exercise”, it added.
The Court said that number of FIRs have been registered against the applicant-accused and thus, the role attributed to him as well as the gravity and seriousness of the offence committed by him while sitting over the highest post of the Government, the court cannot exercise any discretion in favour of him.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the application.
Cause Title- Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates R.J. Goswami and HB Champavat.
Respondent: Addl. Adv. General Mitesh Amin and Addl. Public Prosecutor L.B. Dabhi.
