Supreme Court Refuses To Quash 2011 Gujarat Police FIR Against Ex-IAS Officer Pradeep Sharma, Grants Anticipatory Bail

The Supreme Court today, while refusing to quash the FIR against former Gujarat IAS Officer Pradeep Sharma for allegedly misusing official position to pass unduly favourable orders in a land dispute, granted him anticipatory bail.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale was hearing the challenge to the orders of the Gujarat High Court dated 12.12.2018 and 28.2.2019 where his plea for quashing FIR, registered in 2011 at Rajkot, for offences under S. 409, 219 and 114 IPC and application for anticipatory bail in that regard were rejected.

Sharma, as per the FIR, had in the capacity of a Collecto,r while deciding over an issue of forfeiture of land, had set aside the order of forfeiture and directed to restore the land in favour of the allottees knowing fully well that they were residing abroad and not cultivating the land. Thus Sharma was allegedly “acting against the interest of the Government and with a view to unduly favour the allottees, had passed the order with malicious intention, and thereby had committed the offences under Sections 409, 219 and 114 of the IPC.”

The bench while granting anticipatory bail, directed that Sharma follow the conditions :

“That the appellant upon arrest may be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the present case, subject to following two conditions:

i. Firstly, the appellant will extend all cooperation during the investigation; and

ii. Secondly, if the Investigating Agency requires custodial investigation, it may apply to the concerned Magistrate for appropriate orders, and the said application will be considered/decided on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by us.

On the issue of quashing the FIR, the bench refused to do so noted that the allegations are of serious nature and require a detailed enquiry. The Court agreed to the contentions raised by the state that the order passed in favour of the allottees by Sharma was beyond his jurisdiction. The relevant part of the order reads :

“The prayer seeking quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings is refused, as the allegations against the applicant involve serious allegations of misuse of official position, criminal breach of trust, and alleged corrupt practices in the discharge of public duties. The case against the applicant pertains to his passing an order that allegedly favoured private allottees despite their long absence from the country and despite his own transfer from the concerned jurisdiction.”

“The contentions raised by the State, particularly regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the applicant at the time of passing the impugned order, the alleged collusion in disregarding the legal status of the land, and the purported misrepresentation involving deceased appellants, all indicate that the matter requires further and thorough investigation. “

“The scope of allowing a prayer for quashing is limited and is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it is manifestly clear that no offense is made out. However, in the present case, the FIR and the materials relied upon by the prosecution prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, warranting a full-fledged investigation. Moreover, the allegations against the appellant cannot be adjudicated merely based on the pleadings and require scrutiny of official records and procedural compliance. At the stage of investigation, Courts should refrain from preemptively quashing criminal proceedings unless there is an evident abuse of process.”

“Since the appellant's contentions relate to factual disputes that need verification through proper investigatory mechanisms, it would be inappropriate for this Court to exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings at this stage.”

The Court agreed to grant anticipatory bail to Sharma since the investigation requires documentary examination considering the offence is in the nature of administrative excesses and not a physically committed offense.

It added that since there's no evidence to show Sharma's likelihood of tampering evidence and expressed willingness to cooperate, it was inclined to granting him bail.

“However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the matter is to be investigated primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation. The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity for the custodial interrogation of the appellant beyond scrutiny of official records, which can be done without placing him in detention. Additionally, the appellant has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and no material has been placed before this Court to suggest that he has evaded or obstructed the investigation in any manner. Furthermore, it is well-settled that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre- trial detention.”

“The Court also takes note of the fact that the FIR in question is part of a series of similar allegations against the appellant, and in the absence of any concrete material indicating a likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the grant of anticipatory bail is justified. Accordingly, while the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation as and when required, he shall not be taken into custody, subject to conditions imposed hereinafter to ensure his participation in the inquiry.”

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat appeared for the petitioner.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the State.

Case Details : Pradeep N Sharma v State of Gujarat and Another / SLP (CRL) 354/2019

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 263

Click here to read the judgment