Mukesh Kumar Manbodh Kumar Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
The Gujarat High Court allowed a regular bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by a Superintendent of the CGST Department, Rajkot, who was accused in an FIR registered by the Rajkot City ACB Police Station for offences under Sections 7(a), 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Mitesh Amin, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Apurva N. Mehta, Advocate.
The prosecution alleged that the applicant demanded illegal gratification of ₹20,00,000 and accepted it through a tax advocate for settling the complainant trader’s case relating to non-payment of GST and issuance of fake invoices.
The applicant contended that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. It was argued that he had neither demanded nor received any illegal gratification and that the alleged trap had been laid at the advocate’s office. The applicant further submitted that the investigation had been completed, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and no further recovery or discovery was required from him. He also expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and undertook to appear for the scheduled voice spectrography test whenever called upon.
The State opposed the bail application, contending that the applicant was actively involved in the alleged offence and that the gravity of the allegations warranted continued detention. It was argued that the voice spectrography test was scheduled for 14 August 2026, and if released on bail, the applicant might not cooperate, could tamper with evidence, or abscond.
The High Court reiterated that while considering a bail application, relevant factors include the nature and gravity of the accusations, severity of punishment, possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, likelihood of absconding, the character and antecedents of the accused, and the larger public interest.
After examining the investigation papers, the Court noted that the applicant had been placed under suspension, thereby reducing the possibility of tampering with evidence. The Court also considered that:
