Holding

The Court held that the applicant does not merit anticipatory bail as the case presents a prima facie charge of serious financial misconduct and no exceptional circumstances exist to justify bail.

Summary

The applicant, Harpalsinh Vaghela, a Talati-cum-Mantri of Dhamtavan Gram Panchayat, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, fearing arrest in connection with an FIR alleging misappropriation of approximately Rs. 1.55 crore of Panchayat funds. The FIR alleged that the applicant, in collusion with the former Sarpanch, issued bearer cheques to relatives and bypassed statutory procedures for works such as water supply and soil filling, violating the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 and several IPC provisions. The applicant argued that the allegations were vague, that no specific evidence linked him to the alleged offences, and that he would cooperate with the investigation. The prosecution contended that the prima facie evidence showed procedural violations, breach of trust, and a risk of tampering with evidence, citing the seriousness of the economic offence. The Court, relying on precedents such as Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab and Harisinh Abhesinh Parmar v. State of Gujarat, held that the circumstances did not constitute exceptional circumstances for anticipatory bail and that custodial interrogation was necessary. Consequently, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in view of the alleged offences under the PC Act and IPC.
Whether the allegations constitute a prima facie case of corruption and financial irregularity justifying denial of bail.
Whether the applicant’s role as a public servant and custodian of records warrants custodial interrogation.
Whether the applicant can demonstrate that the allegations are politically motivated or frivolous.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 409, s. 465, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471
Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018s. 12, s. 13(2), s. 13(a), s. 7

Subjects

anticipatory bailcorruptionembezzlementpublic servantPanchayat fundsbearer chequeSection 482 BNSSfinancial irregularitiescustodial interrogation

Judgment

R/CR.MA/9584/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY
BAIL) NO. 9584 of 2026

================================================
HARPALSINH CHOTUBHA VAGHELA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================
Appearance:
MR SI NANAVATI, SR ADVOCATE with MS KAJAL D
SHAH(11966) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NANAVATI & NANAVATI(1933) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 30/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the applicant
has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection
with the FIR being I-C.R. No. 02 of 2026, registered with
Ahmedabad (Rural), ACB Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for
the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(a), and 13(2) of the

Page 1 of 13
R/CR.MA/9584/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (PC Act) and
Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC).

3. Filtered facts of the prosecution case are that a complaint
was received by the ACB Police Station of one Rajendrabhai
Budhaji Solanki and others and upon inquiry, it was found that the
then Sarpanch namely Rekhaben Sanjaykumar Parekh and the
then Talati cum Mantri namely Harpalsinh Vaghela, the present
applicant, and others, in connivance with each other, misused their
position and abused their powers and thereby, in the works
undertaken by Dhamtavan Gram Panchayat for the Financial
Years 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 relating and under
various heads viz. Water Supply, Soil Filling, Festival Celebration
etc. committed serious irregularities and embezzled public money
in the sum approximately Rs. 1,55,23,420/- from the income of the
Gram Panchayat. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused persons,
though no expenditure were incurred towards the aforesaid works
they issued bearer cheques in the names of their relatives / VCE of
the Gram Panchayat and thereby, misappropriated Gram
Panchayat money, for which, FIR in question came to be
registered.

4. Heard, learned senior advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati
appearing with Ms. Kajal D. Shah, learned advocate for the
applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan

Page 2 of 13
R/CR.MA/9584/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

Dave for the respondent – State.

4.1 Learned senior advocate for the applicant submits that the
allegations levelled in the FIR are vague inasmuch soil filling work
came to be undertaken and there are certificates and appreciation
letters from different government organizations. He submitted
that during the inquiry before the District Development Officer
(DDO), several workers had also filed affidavit stating receipt of
payments. He would further submit that Salary Register of the
employees/workers is also maintained wherein, the signatures of
the concerned are also taken, which is very much available.

4.2 The learned senior advocate for the applicant would further
submit that there were several complaints filed against the
Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and after due inquiry, the DDO
removed the Sarpanch from the post by an order dated 31.12.2025,
however, in the findings of the DDO, there is nothing against the
present applicant to show any irregularities at the hands of the
present applicant. On the contrary, in the said order, it is observed
that it was the duty of the Sarpanch to take care of the financial
affairs of the Gram Panchayat.

4.3 It is further submitted by the learned senior advocate for the
applicant that ingredients of the offence under the PC Act are not
satisfied so far as the present applicant is concerned, inasmuch as,
there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had

Page 3 of 13
R/CR.MA/9584/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

demanded money from anybody and/or accepted the demanded
money. Moreover, he submitted that essential ingredients of
Section 12 of the PC Act are also not fulfilled as there is no specific
allegation or fact to suggest that the present applicant abetted or
aided the alleged offender. Further, there is no recovery or
discovery at the instance of the present applicant.

4.4 The learned senior advocate for the applicant would further
submit that so far as offence under the IPC is concerned, there is
not an iota of evidence whatsoever, against the present applicant.

4.5 The learned senior advocate for the applicant submits that
even otherwise the nature of allegations are such that custodial
interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It is further submitted
that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of
investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

4.6 The learned advocate for the applicant further states that the
applicant shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed
while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, it is
urged that this application may be allowed and to grant the
anticipatory bail to the applicant.

5. Conversely, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of
anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence

Page 4 of 13
R/CR.MA/9584/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

and requested not to entertain this application.

5.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
in pursuance to the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the DDO,
Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was removed from the post,
which is not in dispute and as per the allegations levelled in the
complaint, present applicant, in connivance with the Sarpanch,
only, committed the crime in question. If is further submitted by
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that merely, the fact that
the Sarpanch was removed from the post, it does not itself
exonerate the present applicant from involvement in the crime in
question inasmuch as the investigation is still going on and as per
the complaint lodged, the role of the applicant is specific. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that it
is an economic offence in which, public money, runs into more
than one crore, is at stake as the works for which the payments are
made, rather the money is misappropriated, are not carried out
and payments are made to the relatives / employees of the Gram
Panchayat. He submitted that as this is an application for
anticipatory bail and investigation is still underway, in the
circumstances, he requested that this application may not be
entertained.

5.2 In support of his arguments, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Devinder
Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 493.

Page 5 of 13
R/CR.MA/9584/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
parties and perusing the papers available on record, it is
incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid
down in plethora of decisions of the Apex Court on the point. It is
well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be
borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the
nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the
applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of
any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee
from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so
arrested. Though at the stage of bail an elaborate examination of
evidence and detailed reasons touching the merits of the case,
which may prejudice the case of accused, should be avoided.
However, following aspects have been taken into consideration:

a) from the report of the Investigation Officer (IO), it
prima facie appears that no procedures had been followed
that is to say, there is nothing to show that for soil filling any
Work Order was issued to any agency, and/or any Tender
was issued and/or and Quotations were solicited;

b) it further appears from the report of the IO that the
present applicant, by way bypassing all the mandatory

Page 6 of 13
R/CR.MA/9584/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

procedure, has indulged into such an illegal activity and had
taken undue advantage. It is also observed in the report of
the IO that the present applicant has failed to maintain any
different Registers to be maintained, Resolution Book, Bills
and thereby, has violated the provisions of the Panchayat
Act;

c) the Talati-cum-Mantri is not merely a clerical hand but
the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and a public servant.
Under the State Panchayat Act, this office is the primary
custodian of financial records. The substitution of authentic
bills with mere "vouchers" indicates a systematic bypass of
the mandated accounting procedure. A public servant who
facilitates the liquidation of public funds without verifiable
invoices commits a prima facie breach of trust. Pre-arrest bail
in cases of such blatant statutory non-compliance would
undermine the legislative intent of the Act;

d) issuance of a bearer cheque to a third-party Computer
Executive—who acted as a mere conduit to withdraw cash
for the Sarpanch by bypassing the "Account Payee" mandate
for government disbursements, the applicant intentionally
collapsed the audit trail. This is not a "procedural lapse"; it is
a sophisticated orchestration to remove the "paper trail" of
public money. The gravity of this financial subversion
necessitates custodial interrogation to unearth the full extent

Page 7 of 13
R/CR.MA/9584/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

of the nexus between the Talati and the Sarpanch. The
expenditure on "festival expenses" without a corresponding
resolution by the Gram Panchayat speaks volumes. No
amount can be drawn from the Panchayat Fund unless it is
backed by a valid resolution passed in a duly convened
meeting. Spending public money based on personal whims
or "justifications" after committing the act, is a direct
violation of the democratic financial control vested in the
Gram Sabha;

e) in white-collar crimes and embezzlement of public
funds, the "right to silence" or "cooperation with the
investigation" from a position of freedom i.e. granting
anticipatory bail, is often insufficient for the recovery of
evidence. Given the applicant's position of influence within
the Panchayat, there is a high "propensity for interference"
with witnesses (subordinate staff) and the potential
destruction of original registers that may be replaced by the
dubious documents. Effective interrogation of a person
suspected of such a deep-rooted conspiracy is qualitatively
different when he is in custody;

f) the Gram Panchayat is the foundational tier of Indian
Democracy. Financial irregularities at this level do not just
affect the state exchequer; they rob the rural poor of essential
infrastructure and welfare;

Page 8 of 13
R/CR.MA/9584/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

g) granting anticipatory bail to the "custodian of records"
(the Talati) when the records themselves are missing, would
send a wrong signal to the administration. The sanctity of
the Panchayat Fund must be protected against "predatory
bureaucracy";

h) the allegations involve a calculated effort to bypass the
checks and balances of the State Panchayat Rules.
Considering the nature of the 'Bearer Cheque' transactions
and the absence of statutory resolutions, this Court finds no
'exceptional circumstances' to grant any protection;

i) it is a settled principle that if a prima facie case of
financial irregularity is established by the records, the plea of
"malice" or "political rivalry" becomes secondary. The
applicant may claim the investigation is politically
motivated, but the missing bills and no corresponding
Resolutions are objective, documentary facts. Politics does
not sign a bearer cheque; a public servant does. If the
accounting trail is broken, the "why" (vendetta) does not
negate the "what" (misappropriation). The shield of 'political
vendetta' cannot be used to escape the sword of financial
accountability;

j) the Talati-cum-Mantri argues that he was "merely
following the Sarpanch's orders" or that there is no evidence

Page 9 of 13
R/CR.MA/9584/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

of personally pocketing the money. The Talati is the
Statutory Auditor and Secretary. The Sarpanch cannot
withdraw or spend money without the Talati’s signature and
verification; failing to record a "Note of Dissent" or failing to
report the illegal issuance of a bearer cheque to the District
Development Officer (DDO), the Talati’s "omission" becomes
a "criminal act." To say there are "no allegations" is factually
incorrect when the Statutory Duty of Care has been
abandoned. In financial crimes, the person who "opens the
door" for the thief is as liable as the thief. Talati is the
"bridge" between the State and the Village. If the bridge
allows unauthorized transactions, it has failed its purpose;

k) the investigation is based on Inquiry Report and not
merely oral testimony. Documentary evidence is 'impartial';

l) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the
'facilitation' of a gain to another (the Sarpanch/Executive) is
sufficient to constitute an offense;

m) a public servant's loyalty is to the Law, not to a
political superior. Following an illegal order is not a valid
defense for a statutory officer;

Page 10 of 13
R/CR.MA/9584/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

n) the Court would conclude that granting bail in
anticipation of his arrest under the guise of "no specific role"
would paralyze the investigation;

o) in a conspiracy to siphon off public funds, the role of
the person who validates the fraud (the Talati) is more grave
than the one who suggests it. The applicant’s signature on
the vouchers and/or cheques, in the absence of valid bills,
provides the 'link' that necessitates a thorough, custodial
probe. The plea of political vendetta is an afterthought to
distract from the collapse of administrative ethics;

p) the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar
Bansal (supra) in paras 21 & 23, has observed as under:

“21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in
a serious offence like corruption are required to be
satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in
exceptional circumstances where the court is prima
facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely
enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically
motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is
concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional
circumstances have been made out by the petitioner –
accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity
in the prosecution.

xxx

23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot
be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.
The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations,

Page 11 of 13
R/CR.MA/9584/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

which the court should keep in mind while considering the
plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the
cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over
solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes,
defeat the cause of public justice.”
(emphasis supplied)

q) the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of
Harisinh Abhesinh Parmar v. State of Gujarat, reported in
2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 244993 has observed in para 9 thus:

“9. Therefore, considering the law which has been laid
down by the apex court and considering the averments made
in the complaint filed by the original complainant and after
considering the observations made by the learned sessions
judge concerned, this court is of the considered view that
custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline
anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial
interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself,
cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail and this
is not the case where the discretion should be exercised in
favour of the applicant for anticipatory bail. Therefore, this
application is required to be rejected.”
(emphasis supplied)

7. In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of the
Court, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The
application, therefore, fails and is rejected, accordingly. Rule is
discharged.

7.1 It goes without saying that the trial Court shall not be
influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court

Page 12 of 13
R/CR.MA/9584/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026

which are solely made for the purpose of dealing the present
application.

[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/SB/2/1tss300426

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/04/2026 14:40:04

Page 13 of 13