Case Law Details
Gauravkumar Sudarshankumar Arora Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
In the instant case, the petitioner filed this petition to seek anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered for the offense punishable under Sections 12, 7(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The petitioner is GST inspector since 2016. The accused had talked with the informant and it was made to understand that if any legal formalities are not to be done, the informant would pay a sum of Rs.75,000/ to the accused persons. The informant did not want to pay the amount of bribe and, therefore, lodged a complaint with the ACB Police Station, Surendranagar.
High Court states that, classification which is made in Section 6A on the basis of status in the government service is not permissible under Article 14 as it defeats the purpose offinding prima facie truth into the allegations of graft, which amount to an offence under the PC Act, 1988. Can there be sound differentiation between corrupt public servants based on their status? Surely not, because irrespective of their status or position, corrupt public servants are corrupters of public power. The corrupt public servants, whether high or low, are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry equally. Based on the position or status in service, no distinction can be made between public servants against whom there are allegations amounting to an offence under the PC Act, 1988. Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the PC Act, 1988. It is difficult to justify the classification which has been made in Section 6A because the goal of law in the PC Act, 1988 is to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand and all public servants are warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this application to seek anticipatory bail fails and is hereby rejected.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
