Ahmedabad PMLA Court Denies Bail to Suspended IAS Officer in Corruption Case
A special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Ahmedabad on Thursday rejected the bail application of suspended IAS officer Rajendrakumar Patel. The officer faces serious charges of money laundering and corruption linked to his tenure as the collector of Surendranagar district.
Background of the Case and Arrest
Patel, a 2015-batch Indian Administrative Service officer, was arrested on January 2 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). This action followed an FIR filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against him and others on bribery allegations. The case centers on the processing of applications for change of land use during his posting in Surendranagar.
Defense Arguments and Bail Plea
During the bail hearing, Patel's counsel argued vigorously for his release. The defense claimed innocence, highlighting Patel's "blotless" service record over the past decade. They contended that no prima facie evidence existed against him, and his involvement was merely alleged based on connivance with co-accused individuals.
The defense further alleged that the ED acted maliciously in targeting Patel. They pointed out that the so-called NA scam was reportedly ongoing even before Patel assumed his role as collector, yet the agency singled him out for unclear reasons. According to the defense, no incriminating material was found against Patel, and stories about his wealth were fabricated.
Prosecution's Strong Opposition
Special public prosecutor Anirudh Kamboj strongly opposed the bail plea, presenting compelling evidence. Kamboj noted that Rs 67.5 lakh in cash was recovered from Patel's subordinate. Additionally, a recovered hisaab sheet documented records of bribes collected while processing land use change applications.
In a striking revelation, the prosecution submitted that analysis of Patel's Google activity before his arrest showed he searched for "how to reset Samsung S24 Ultra". This, they argued, suggested an intention to erase digital data and destroy potential evidence.
Court's Decision and Reasoning
After hearing both sides, special judge K M Sojitra delivered the verdict denying bail. The court noted that the hisaab sheet indicated the collector allegedly received over Rs 3.12 crore as his 50% share in the bribes.
In its order, the court stated: "Having considered the nature of evidence as revealing from the complaint and case papers, affidavit of investigating officer, hisaab sheets, shared WhatsApp hisaab sheets among the accused persons, statements of various persons under Section 50 of PMLA, this Court cannot form prima facie opinion that the applicant is not guilty of having committed/indulged in offence of money laundering."
The court emphasized the seriousness of the evidence, including financial records and digital communications, which collectively painted a picture of involvement in money laundering activities.
