Gujarat High Court likens corruption to a poisonous snake

Gujarat High Court likens corruption to a poisonous snake

The Court rejected anticipatory bail to the accused gtainted bureaucrat and said his custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth other transactions which may lead to the disclosure of relevant material

The Gujarat High Court has criticised rampant corruption in bureaucracy and termed it a social menace that has penetrated deep into the society. and likening it to a termite or a poisonous snake.

While denying anticipatory bail to Ramendrainh Kushvah, an assistant director with the Gujarat State Land Development Nigam Ltd, the single-judge bench of Justice RM Sareen on 11 February 2021 made a scathing remark against the corrupt practices of the bureaucrats.

While hearing the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner Ramendrainh Kushvah in connection with the alleged Khet Talavadi scheme (farm ponds) scam, the Court said, "Corruption has become a social menace and is very much rampant nowadays. It is like a termite or a poisonous snake that has penetrated deeply our systems."

The petitioner had approached the HC seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A case against him was registered with ACB Police Station, Godhra, vide C.R.No.08/2020 for the offences on 6 August 2020.

The focal point of the FIR and the prosecution case was that the petitioner misused his official position and was involved in corrupt practice committed for the offences punishable under sections Section 13(1)(b) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment), 2018.

According to the Income Tax returns of the bureaucrat, while the official income earned by him during the check period stood at Rs 5,92,27,582, and considering deduction towards the expense, his illicit income in the nature of investment and property owned was worth Rs 3,71,23,208.

There was a rise in his income to the extent of 62.68 per cent as compared to the source of his known legitimate source of income.

The prosecution informed the Court that there was a strong likelihood of the petitioner having misused his official position by involving himself in the purchase of the immovable property.

The Court noted that the petitioner has been avoiding arrest and absconding ever since the FIR was filed against him and considering that he has not cooperated in the investigation, Justice Sareen observed, "The petitioner herein - Original Accused has submitted reply but there is no explanation about the known sources of income as against the payment made by investing in property purchased by the petitioner during the aforesaid check period."

The Court also noted that an analysis of his bank account statement revealed that the total official income earned by the petitioner in his official position during the aforesaid check period so deposited in the bank came to around Rs 30,31,328, there was only one withdrawal of Rs 10,000.

"In absence of any further withdrawal of any amount from the said bank account and no explanation being given by the petitioner in his reply regarding the daily expenses as well as the investment being done by the petitioner in the property purchased in the name of the wife more particularly properties situated at Bhid, Gwalior, M.P., Vadodara and Savali, raises presumption of illicit income," the Court said.

The Court also observed that the details of properties purchased by him and the connected irregularities in furnishing the details of the fund used and utilized was not explained by him appropriately.

The Court further said that because of the factual details collected by the Investigating Officer and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, "the custodial interrogation of the petitioner herein is necessary".

The judge explained that custodial interrogation becomes necessary for verifying the actual nature of transaction as well as to unearth other transactions which may lead to the disclosure of relevant material, to bring home the charge.

Delivering the judgement Justice Sareen said that prima facie there is a strong case against the petitioner and considering the gravity of the offence, he was disinclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.