Corruption Like A Termite Or A Toxic Snake Which Has Penetrated Deeply Into Our Methods: Gujarat Excessive Court docket


While the Gujarat Supreme Court refused to give bail to a deputy director of Gujarat State Land Development Nigam Ltd., Ramendrainh Kushvah on Thursday (February 11), he made a scathing remark against the bureaucrats’ corrupt practices.

The judicial bank RM Sareen noted, upon hearing the pre-arrest bail submitted by the petitioner in connection with the alleged Khet Talavadi (Farm Ponds) fraud,

“Corruption has become a social threat and is rampant these days. It’s like a termite or a venomous snake (which) has penetrated deep into our systems.”

The matter before the Tribunal

The petitioner – originally defendant No. 1 – preferred the immediate application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for early bail.

This case concerns the case registered with the ACB Police Station Godhra vide CRNo.08 / 2020 for the offenses punishable under Section 13 (1) (b) and 13 (2) Corruption Prevention Act (Amendment), 2018 .

In accordance with the essence of the FIR and the criminal prosecution case, the petitioner (originally defendant No. 1) abused his official position and was involved in corrupt practices committed for the criminal offenses under Section 13 (1) B and 13 2 Corruption Prevention Act (Amendment), 2018.

Allegedly, as reported in the IT Returns, the petitioner’s official income during the review period is Rs. 5,92,27,582 / – and, taking into account the cost deduction, his illegal income in the form of investments and property in the Value of Rs.3,71,23,208 / -.

There is reportedly a 62.68% increase in income from the source of official income.

APP argued that, given the gravity of the charges in the present case, the current petitioner has a special role in the FIR of engaging in corrupt practices and possessing disproportionate assets.

It has also been argued that it is very likely that the petitioner abused his official position by participating in the purchase of the immovable property.

Comments from the Court

However, citing that the FIR was registered on the matter on August 6, 2020, the petitioner remained on the run until that date, trying to avoid arrest. He was not found in his home or office, nor was he involved in the investigation, said

“The petitioner referred to here – Original Accused – has submitted a response, but there is no explanation for the known sources of income compared to the payment through investment in real estate that the petitioner purchased during the above review period.”

The Court also found that an analysis of the bank statement of this bank account shows that the total official income earned by the petitioner in his official position during the above verification period deposited in the above bank account is around 30,31,328 rupees. However, an entry regarding the payout is only possible once for an amount of Rs / – 10,000.

The Tribunal said:

“In the absence of a further withdrawal of any amount from the bank account mentioned and without any explanation from the petitioner in his response to the petitioner’s daily expenses and investment in property acquired on behalf of the wife, in particular properties in Bhid, Gwalior, MP, Vadodara and Savali give rise to the presumption of illegal income. ”

We also found that we did not adequately explain the details of the properties we purchased and the related irregularities in providing the details of the fund used and in use.

The Tribunal also said:

“In view of the factual details that the investigator has gathered in the course of the investigation so far and taking into account the general facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to question the petitioner in detention.”

The Court also found that the importance of the custody questioning in relation to these types of allegations is becoming more necessary in order to verify the actual nature of the transaction and to uncover other transactions that may lead to the disclosure of relevant material to bring the indictment home .

Finally, the Court found that there was strong prima facie evidence against the petitioner and that consideration was given to the gravity of the crime. Therefore the Court was not inclined to release the petitioner on early bail.

Case title – Ramendrasinh Jaysinh Kushvah v. Gujarat state

Click here to download the order

Read order