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:
- Investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.
- The applicant had remained in custody since 29 April 2026.
- Nothing further was required to be recovered or discovered from him.
- The applicant had no past criminal antecedents.
- He had filed an undertaking agreeing to appear for the voice spectrography test and to cooperate fully with the investigation.
- The trial was likely to take considerable time.
- The prosecution failed to demonstrate any compelling circumstances justifying continued detention.
The Court relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, observing that prolonged incarceration before conclusion of trial would amount to a form of pre-trial punishment. Reiterating the settled principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, and keeping in view the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court found the case fit for grant of regular bail.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the applicant’s release on regular bail upon execution of a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including non-interference with the prosecution, surrender of passport, restriction on leaving Gujarat without prior permission, monthly appearance before the concerned police station for six months, furnishing Aadhaar and contact details, abstaining from illegal activities, and strict compliance with the undertaking to appear for the voice spectrography test. The Court clarified that its observations were only for deciding the bail application and would not influence the trial on merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.11194019260004 of 2026 registered with Rajkot City ACB Police Station, Rajkot City, for the offences under Sections 7(a), 12, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
[3.0] Learned Senior Advocate appearing with learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. The applicant has neither demanded nor received any illegal gratification. Trap was laid in advocate office. No one has accepted illegal gratification. Present applicant has nothing to do with the offence alleged. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the applicant. He has further submitted that applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and will appear for voice spectrography test as and when called for and for the said aspect, the applicant is ready to file an undertaking. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail on the ground that the applicant is very much involved in the present offence and considering the gravity of offence, no case is made out to entertain present bail application. He has further stated that in abatement of co-accused, the applicant has made an illegal demand. Date for voice spectrography test is scheduled on 14/08/2026 and if the applicant is released on bail, he may not appear for the same and possibility cannot be ruled out that the applicant will temper with the evidence and flee from justice. Therefore, present application does not deserve consideration.
[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.
[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Since present applicant is under suspension, question does not arise of tempering with the evidence. So far apprehension qua cooperating with the investigation and appear for voice spectrography test, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to appear before the concerned authority and to show bonafide, ready to file undertaking. Following aspects have been considered:
i. Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;
ii. Applicant is behind the bar since 29/04/2026;
iii. There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;
iv. The applicant is having no past antecedents;
v. Learned advocate has tendered undertaking dated 30/07/2026 of the applicant. The same is taken on record. The applicant has undertook that applicant is ready and willing to appear for Voice Spectrography Test as and when the notice is received for the same and thereby fully cooperate with the investigation;
vi. Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take its own time;
vii. Prosecution has failed to point out the circumstances to continue or prolong his detention.
[7.0] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration.
[8.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.11194019260004 of 2026 registered with Rajkot City ACB Police Station, Rajkot City, on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he/she shall;
a. not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
b. not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
c. surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;
d. not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;
e. mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in every month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
f. furnish the Aadhaar card, email ID/present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence/contact number without prior permission of Trial Court;
g. not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant;
h. shall comply with the undertaking dated 30/07/2026 tendered before this Court failing which learned trial Court shall have liberty to issue warrant against the applicant.
[9.0] The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.
[10.0] Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.
[11.0] At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
[12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
