Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Gujarat High Court: In an application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with allegations of impersonating Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) officers and demanding money from a factory owner, the Single Bench of Sanjeev J. Thaker, J., held that the applicant could not seek anticipatory bail merely on the ground that he had not personally demanded the money and claimed to have visited the factory as a journalist. Considering the material collected during investigation, including statements of co-accused indicating his participation in the alleged plan, the Court found that the applicant did not deserve the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application was rejected.
Background
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR registered at Junagadh Taluka Police Station for offences under Sections 204, 308(6), 61(2)(a), 351(3), 319(2) and 112, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The allegation was that the applicant, along with the other accused, represented themselves as GPCB officers, went to the complainant’s factory, recorded videos of contaminated water and demanded ₹21,000 for deleting the videos and photographs.
The applicant contended that he was a journalist, had merely recorded the contaminated water and had not personally demanded any money, and that there was no recovery from him. The State opposed the application, relying upon the statements of arrested co-accused, who had specifically named the applicant and stated that all the accused had impersonated GPCB officers and collected money from the complainants.
Analysis and decision
The Court at the outset noted that the applicant had accompanied the other accused to the factory in his wife’s car, despite knowing that they were not GPCB officers. The statements of the co-accused further indicated that all the accused had planned the incident together, impersonated GPCB officers, recorded videos and photographs of contaminated water, demanded ₹21,000 for deleting them, and thereafter distributed the amount amongst themselves.
The Court observed that, although a co-accused’s statement to police is not admissible in evidence, it can be considered during investigation as a clue to guide the investigating officer in collecting evidence and determining the course of further investigation. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid fact, the statement of the co-accused provides a clue for investigation and to unearth the truth, the statement of co-accused is required.
The Court held that the applicant’s failure to personally demand the amount could not be considered in isolation, as the investigation material collected during the investigation indicates his alleged association with the other accused from the beginning of the incident. His presence with them, knowledge that they were not GPCB officers and use of his wife’s car were relevant circumstances, while his defence of having visited the factory as a journalist was a matter for consideration at the appropriate stage. The Court observed that the statements of the co-accused disclose his participation in the plan whereby they allegedly represented themselves as GPCB officers and obtained money from the complainant.
The Court further noted the accused had committed 2 similar offences on the same day against different factory owners, with the accused allegedly adopting the same modus operandi of threatening to release videos and photographs showing contaminated water from their factories to extract money. Considering the specific allegations, material collected during investigation and the 2 similar offences, the Court held that the applicant did not deserve the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail.
The Court, relying upon Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, observed that life and personal liberty are the most prized possessions of an individual but not at the cost of larger interest of society and public and that anticipatory bail in serious offences could be granted only in exceptional circumstances, having regard to the specific allegations, material collected during investigation and 2 similar offences registered on the same day against different complainants, the applicant did not deserve the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail.
The Court, considering the material on record, the circumstances connecting the applicant with the other accused, the nature of the allegations and 2 similar complaints filed on the same day at different police stations, rejected the application for anticipatory bail and discharged the Rule. The Court clarified that its observations were tentative and would not affect the trial or other proceedings.
[Vivek Pratapray Maheta v. State of Gujarat, 2026 SCC OnLine Guj 7416, decided on 21-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: P S Datta
For the respondent: Tirthraj Pandya, APP
