Pradeep Sharma, the former IAS official, applied for bail in a land allocation matter, but the Gujarat High Court denied it, citing the possibility of misleading the court.
Under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Pradeep Sharma had filed an application to be granted bail in relation to a filed First Information Report (FIR) for an offence 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).
“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,” : the court said.
The complaint in this case was made in response to the illegalities committed by the previous Collector, Kachchh-Bhuj, when granting N.A. Permission for the parcel of land measuring 1 Acre 38 Gunths, out of the total area of the land measuring 5 Acre 38 Gunthas of Survey No.709, Government Tra. Survey No.870, located at Moje Bhuj City, Taluka: Bhuj. The complainant was authorized by the Office of the Collector & District Magistrate, Bhuj, to file this complaint. According to his allegations, the property in issue was allegedly tended to by the applicant, a retired I.A.S. who served as the Collector and District Magistrate of Bhuj from 2003 to 2006.
According to the allegations, the applicant committed a criminal breach of trust to the government by misusing his powers in an illegal and arbitrary manner, which cost the government exchequer crores of rupees. It was claimed that the applicant, in collusion with the other co-accused, performed his duties dishonestly and awarded the government vest land in favor of the other co-accused at a lower price than its actual value by converting the land from non-agricultural to residential use. He thus requested bail before the High Court after a FIR was lodged against him.
“… 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 High Court, after hearing both parties’ arguments, remarked.
The applicant-accused passed the order of allocation in favor of the co-accused, although being fully aware that a public road and a railway line passed through the area in issue. The Court noted this important detail.
The court further said, “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”.
The court stated that since the applicant-accused has been the subject of multiple FIRs, the court is unable to grant him any discretion due to the role that has been assigned to him and the seriousness of the offense that he committed while holding the highest position in the government.
Consequently, the application was denied by the High Court.
Additional Advocate General Mitesh Amin represented the respondent, while Advocate R.J. Goswami represented the petitioner.