Gujarat High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Journalist Accused Of Posing As Pollution Control Board Officer, Seeking Bribe

Update: 2026-09-25 05:50 GMT

Click the Play button to listen to article

story

The Gujarat High Court denied anticipatory bail to a "journalist" who was accused of impersonating himself as an officer of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board and demanding money from a factory owner to delete photos and videos of contaminated water which was allegedly found there. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 256]The allegation against the applicant was that he along with other accused,...

Your free access to Live Law has expired

Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Subscribe Now

The allegation against the applicant was that he along with other accused, represented themselves as GPCB officers, went to the complainant's factory, recorded videos of contaminated water and demanded Rs.21,000 for deleting the videos and photographs. The material collected during investigation indicates the presence and involvement of the applicant in the incident.

The applicant thus moved the high court seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Sections 204, 308(6), 61(2)(a), 351(3), 319(2) and 112 BNS.

At the outset, Justice Sanjeev J Thaker in his order said, "Impersonation as a public officer is a serious act as it misuses the authority attached to the office.”

The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant had gone to the factory of the complainant in his capacity as a journalist and neither the complainant nor the prosecution has alleged that the applicant himself demanded any money from the complainant and that the demand was made by the other accused.

"The said submission, however, cannot be considered without looking at the other circumstances emerging from the investigation. It is not in dispute that the applicant had gone to the factory along with the other accused in a car which belongs to his wife. The material collected during the investigation further indicates that the applicant was aware that the persons accompanying him were not officers of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board. Despite knowing this fact, he is alleged to have accompanied them when they represented themselves before the complainant as officers of the GPCB,"the court said.

The court however said that the statements of co accused Ajaybhai Jesingbhai Jadav and Hemantbhai Batukbhai Shekhwa indicated that all the accused had together planned to go to the factory, represent themselves as GPCB officers and record videos and photographs of the contaminated water. They had stated they demanded an amount of Rs.21,000 from the complainant for deleting the photographs and videos which was later distributed amongst all accused.

"At the time of investigation, statement of co-accused provides clues to the investigating agency as to how to investigate the case and thereafter the Investigating Officer has to collect evidence against the person who has been named as accused. In view of the said fact, there is no bar on considering the statement of the co-accused for investigation purpose, irrespective of the fact that the statement of the co-accused to police is not admissible in evidence before the Court, but police can certainly consider that statement as a clue while interrogating him further or other person arrested or interrogated during the course of investigation, as the said confession of co-accused gives a clue to the Investigating Authorities as to how to investigate the matter and against whom to investigate the matter. 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.
Therefore, at this stage, the fact that the applicant did not personally demand the amount cannot be considered by itself," the court added.

The court said that the material collected during the investigation indicated his alleged association with the other accused from the beginning of the incident. His presence along with the other accused, his knowledge that they were not GPCB officers and the use of a car belonging to his wife are circumstances which require consideration while examining his request for anticipatory bail the court added.

It further said that the applicant's defence that he had gone to the factory only as a journalist and had recorded the video of the contaminated water is a matter which can be considered on the basis of evidence at the appropriate stage. It further noted that the accused had committed another similar type offence on the same day, for which, a complaint had been filed.

"Considering the material available on record, the specific circumstances connecting the applicant with the other accused, the nature of the allegations and two complaints of similar nature filed on the same day by two different complainants at two different police stations, this Court is not inclined to grant the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail to the applicant," the court said.