Court says material collected in investigation prima facie showed applicant’s involvement, and custodial interrogation was needed amid two similar complaints filed the same day.
The Gujarat High Court has refused anticipatory bail to Vivek Pratapray Maheta, who was accused of accompanying co-accused persons posing as officers of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB), visiting a factory, recording videos of allegedly contaminated water, and demanding money to delete the footage.
Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker, while dismissing the application, observed that impersonation as a public officer is a serious act because it misuses the authority attached to the office. The Court noted that the investigation material prima facie indicated the applicant’s presence and involvement in the incident, and that his claim of being a journalist could not be accepted at the anticipatory bail stage.
According to the prosecution, the applicant and others went to the complainant’s factory in a car belonging to the applicant’s wife, represented themselves as GPCB officers, recorded photographs and videos, and demanded Rs. 21,000 for deleting the material. The State argued that two similar offences were registered on the same day in two different police stations in Junagadh, showing a common modus operandi of extortion from factory owners.
The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, had not personally demanded any money, and had only gone to the factory in his capacity as a journalist. He also claimed that no recovery was made from him and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
The Court, however, found that the statements of the arrested co-accused specifically named the applicant and suggested a pre-planned scheme to impersonate officials, record videos of contaminated water, and extort money from the complainant. It held that although a co-accused’s statement may not be admissible as evidence at trial, it can still serve as a clue during investigation and be considered at the bail stage to assess the need for custodial interrogation.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav, Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the High Court reiterated that anticipatory bail in serious offences is an extraordinary protection, to be granted only in exceptional cases where the court is prima facie satisfied that the accused has been falsely implicated and is unlikely to misuse liberty.
Finding that the allegations, investigation material, and the existence of two similar complaints on the same day weighed against the applicant, the Court concluded that he was not entitled to anticipatory bail and rejected the application. The Court clarified that its observations were tentative and would not affect the trial.
Bottom Line :
Anticipatory bail can be refused where material collected during investigation prima facie shows applicant's involvement in impersonating public officers and extorting money, and where custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the truth, especially when two similar offences with same modus operandi are registered on the same day.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 204, 308(6), 61(2)(a), 351(3), 319(2), 112
Vivek Pratapray Maheta v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987107
