Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1017 (GUJ)

ANILKUMAR BHARATBHAI KATARA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2021-11-15

B.N.KARIA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applicant has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with the FIR registered being I-C.R No.11821008200746 of 2020 before Dahod Rural Police Station, District: Dahod for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, r/w. 120B of IPC and Section 66(d) of I.T.Act as well as Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted in his arguments that applicant is not a Government servant/public servant and there is no allegations or iota of evidence that the applicant has taken any pecuniary benefit from the amount which was directly disbursed to the farmers. It is further submitted that no offence punishable under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is established by the prosecution. That, while implementing PM Kisan Yojna, the amount of relief could only be credited to the accounts of farmers after scrutiny and sanction from the Taluka and District Level, Government Officials. That, in order to shield the Government Officials, the applicant and co-accused are made scapegoat. That, there are no ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. That, the applicant has not assured any official for his favour or demanded any gratification from the farmers. That, even if the allegations levelled against the applicant is believed to be true than also it was contractual relationship between the applicant and farmers for filling up forms for which the applicant used to charge nominal fees. That, nothing is recovered or discovered from the applicant except the mobile phone and laptop. That, the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution nor he has played any role in the commission of any alleged offence. That, the FIR do not satisfy ingredients of any of the offences as alleged. That, the appliant undertakes to co-operate with the investigation and make himself available as and when his presence is required. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate appearing for the applicant to enlarge the applicant on regular bail with suitable conditions. 3. That, the FIR do not satisfy ingredients of any of the offences as alleged. That, the appliant undertakes to co-operate with the investigation and make himself available as and when his presence is required. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate appearing for the applicant to enlarge the applicant on regular bail with suitable conditions. 3. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has stronlgy objected the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that the complainant himself is a Government official working with the District Panchayat as Agriculture Officer. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons, in connivance with each other, had created the bogus and forged application of agriculturist and obtained financial benefit in terms of Rs.2000/- of each applicant, as per the scheme of the Central Government namely PRADHANMANTRI KISAN SAMMAN NIDHI YOJNA. That, out of 32717 persons, 1191 persons have got the financial benefits which comes to Rs. 23,82,000/- . That, active participation was made by the present applicant in committing an offence and therefore, after completion of investigation, investigating agency had submitted the chargesheet on 10.6.2021 before the competent court wherein, present applicant is placed at accused No.3 in the charge-sheet. That, during the investigation, it was found that total amount of fraud was reached to Rs. 9,06,24,000/-. Learned APP has requested to consider the affidavit of the Investigating Officer produced on record. That, the applicant is having close association with the prime accused no.1 Mayur, who was working as District Level Enterpreneur DLE-District Panchayat, because of his position as District Level Enterpreneur, the accused No.1 had wrongfully got the digital user ID, for which he can directly submit an application, by passing one stage of verification at the Taluka level. That, by misusing 3 master digital user ID, the accused No.1 had created bogus 78 user ID and the same were given to the other accused persons, by which various applications were submitted, approved and ultimately those persons were successful in getting the financial gain under the scheme of PRADHANMANTRI KISAN SAMMAN NIDHI YOJNA. That, present applicant is one of the persons, who had got such bogus user ID, by which, he had applauded various applications of bogus applicants. That, all such bogus Ids have been utilized and created by using master key by the accused No.1. That, present applicant is one of the persons, who had got such bogus user ID, by which, he had applauded various applications of bogus applicants. That, all such bogus Ids have been utilized and created by using master key by the accused No.1. Learned APP has referred list of bogus user ID revealed from NIC as annexed at Annexure R1. He has also referred the detailed report prepared by the Investigating Agency on the basis of the charge-sheet papers with regard to the connection of the present applicant with the crime at Annexure R-2. That, further investigation as provided under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code is going on and at present, some of the accused persons are absconding and there are bright chances that even the Investigating Agency may get more material during the further investigation about the role and connection of the present applicant with the crime. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent-State to dismiss this application. 4. Having gone through the contents of the FIR and subimissions made by learned Advocate appearing for the applicant as well as learned APP appearing for the respondentstate and documents produced on record as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before this Court, it reveals that initially the offence was registered under sections 406, 420 ansd 120B of IPC as well as under section 66(d) of IT Act. The complainant lodged the complaint against unknown persons. As per prosecution case, the accused perasons in connivance with each other, had created bogus and forged application of agriculturist and obtained financial benefit in terms of RS. 2000/- of each applicant, as per the scheme of the Central Government namely PRADHANMANTRI KISAN SAMMAN NIDHI YOJNA. Subsequently section 13 (1)(A), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, were added by the prosecution. It appeares that the complainant is the government official working with the District Pnachayat as Agriculture Officer. As per the complaint total 35,436 applications were examined received form the different Talukas of the Dahod District through the Gram Sevak. After examination of the above said application, only 2719 farmers were found as correct beneficiary of the scheme and 32,717 applications were found bogus. Out of them 1191 persons were paid Rs. 2000/- each which comes to Rs. As per the complaint total 35,436 applications were examined received form the different Talukas of the Dahod District through the Gram Sevak. After examination of the above said application, only 2719 farmers were found as correct beneficiary of the scheme and 32,717 applications were found bogus. Out of them 1191 persons were paid Rs. 2000/- each which comes to Rs. 23,82,000/- and they were wrongly benefited persons, however, they were not entitled to claim the amount under the said scheme. As per the charge-sheet filed by the investigation agency, charged under sections 406, 420 and 120B of IPC as well as under section 66(d) of IT Act is levelled. Further it appears that qua the present applicant, investigation is over and charge-sheet was filed dated 10th June, 2021 before the competent court wherein, the applicant is placed as accused No.3. Total amount of fraud, after conclusion of the investigation, was reached to Rs. 9,06,24,000/- From the chargesheet papers, there is no reason to disbelieve that the applicant is having closed association with the prime accused No.1 namely Mayur, who was working as District Level Enterpreneur DLE-District Panchayat. He had wrongfully got the digital user ID. He misused 3 master digital user ID and created bogus 78 user ID and same were given to the other accused persons by which various applications were submitted, approved and ultimately those persons were successful in getting the financial gain under the scheme of PRADHANMANTRI KISAN SAMMAN NIDHI YOJNA. The present applicant is one of the persons who had got such user ID and by which he had applauded varuous applicatioms of bogus applicants. As per affidavit of the Investigating Officer produced on record, such bogus Ids were utilized and created by using the master key by the accused No. 1. The list of bogus ID revealed from NIC is annexed by the prosecution at Annexure R1. Present applicant has also received Rs. 100/- and Rs.150/- and he has made contact with the main accused namely Mayur Damor to pay Rs.50/- per form and thereafter, he had filled up the forms of persons who were not farmers. The applicant has also given Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused No.1 namely Mayur Damor for getting false user ID and password. The applicant alongwith other co-accused persons has prima facie misappropriated government money of Rs. 9,06,24,000/- . The applicant has also given Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused No.1 namely Mayur Damor for getting false user ID and password. The applicant alongwith other co-accused persons has prima facie misappropriated government money of Rs. 9,06,24,000/- . It apppears that other 14 accused persons are yet not arrested and they are absconding and investigation against them is continued. While going into the status report furnished by the Deputy Suptd.of Police, District Dahod and counter affidavit dated 7th October, 2021, sworn by the Deputy Suptd. Of Police, Dahod without expressing any opinion, this Court at this stage, feels that release of the applicant would hamper the investigation of other 14 accused persons, who are absconding or not available and may influence the witnesses and tamper with the material evidences, as the applicant is ultimately beneficial and conspirator in huge monetory transaction. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in CLJ 2013 2734 which is held as under: “15) Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 16) While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.” Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case and also the submissions of the prosecution that investigation against co-accused persons is under process. 5. Thus, without expressing any opinion, this Court is of the opinion that the release of the applicant at this stage may hamper the investigation and therefore, prayer made by the applicant stands dismissed. 5. Thus, without expressing any opinion, this Court is of the opinion that the release of the applicant at this stage may hamper the investigation and therefore, prayer made by the applicant stands dismissed. The applicant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court after completing investigation of the remaining co-accused persons and if such application is filed before the trial Court, the trial Court would be free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present application. 6. With the above observation, present application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.