Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Of Former Anand Additional Collector In Disproportionate Assets Case

The Gujarat High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of former Anand Resident Additional Collector Ketki Vyas in a disproportionate assets case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).

Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker rejected the plea, allowing investigating agencies to proceed with her arrest in connection with the case.

Court cites seriousness of corruption allegations

While rejecting the anticipatory bail plea, the High Court observed that allegations of amassing illegal wealth by misusing public office were serious in nature and affected the foundations of democratic governance and public administration.

The court said that in economic offences of this nature, custodial interrogation could be necessary and that anticipatory bail could not be granted solely on the basis of arguments raised by the accused.

The court also referred to Supreme Court judgments while observing that corruption was a serious offence affecting public administration and economic governance.

ACB alleges assets disproportionate to income

According to the prosecution, Vyas served as Resident Additional Collector in Anand from 2012 to 2023.

The ACB has registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging that she possessed assets disproportionate to her known sources of income.

According to the prosecution’s calculations placed before the court, Vyas had disclosed assets of ₹11.34 lakh before the investigation period. During the investigation period, assets worth ₹7.51 crore were allegedly accumulated.

The prosecution claimed her total legal income during the period was ₹5.17 crore, while disproportionate assets and unexplained expenditure amounted to ₹3.56 crore, allegedly representing 68.84% more than her known lawful income.

Prosecution alleges non-cooperation

Opposing the bail plea, the state government argued that cash deposits of ₹1.11 crore were made into the accounts of the accused and her relatives during the investigation period, while ₹1.18 crore in cash was allegedly used for property purchases.

The prosecution also told the court that the accused was not cooperating with the investigation and could not be located for questioning.

It submitted that her residence was found locked and that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the financial transactions and property acquisitions.

After considering the allegations, the material placed on record and the prosecution’s submissions, the High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.