Gazala Parveen Bail: Bombay HC concedes both Sections 8 & 11 of PC Act can’t be invoked against accused
It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made herein above in this order, Justice Milind N Jadhav
The Bombay High Court earlier today while granting regular bail to Gazala Parveen Iqbal Ahmed in the alleged fake birth certificates case concurred with defence counsel Adv Sonam Pandey’s argument that both Sections 8 and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, can’t be invoked simultaneously against the accused who has been languishing in jail since she was arrested last year.
On 22 March 2025, Parveen was taken into custody in the FIR No 51/2025 lodged at the Malegaon Chhawani Police Station allegedly for issuing ‘Non-Availability Certificates’ by forging signature of Abdul Tawwab, his immediate supervisor and Accused No 20 in the Spl Case No 100/2025. There are 23 accused in the said FIR, six were never arrested and seven others have already been granted bail.
The HC ordered Parveen’s immediate release. However, she has to wait further before she finally walks out of prison as she is an accused in another case. A single judge bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav remarked that Section 8 punishes a person who gives an undue advantage to induce a public servant to act improperly. Whereas Section 11 punishes a public servant who takes a valuable thing without consideration from a person concerned in business transacted by him.
“The two provisions cannot describe the same person in the same transaction because the first assumes that Applicant is the giver whereas the second assumes that Applicant is the officer and hence, Section 11 fails in that event,” the HC observed.
The HC pointed out the prosecution’s own case recorded by the Additional Sessions Court Malegaon in its second bail order dated 8 October 2025 that as a contractual employee the Applicant “would not be authorized to sign any document or to issue any certificate”. In 2025, her two consecutive bail applications were rejected by the Additional Sessions Court Malegaon, the trial court. With this, her first bail application at the Bombay HC was withdrawn earlier this year.
It is settled law that object of granting bail to an accused of an offence is neither punitive nor preventive in nature. The true object behind grant of bail is to secure appearance of accused during trial. Refusal of bail and detention of under trial prisoner in jail for an indefinite period is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there is need to keep in view the principle that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception, Justice Milind N Jadhav
“If Applicant had no business to transact, there was no business transacted by her within Section 11. Therefore, it is seen that prosecution cannot say in one breath that she had no official function and in the next that she was bribed to perform it. At the threshold, once this is prima facie observed, prosecution case will have to be proved at trial,” the HC observed.
The HC said the allegation that Parveen had forged signature of Accused No 20 (Abdul Tawwab) is “capable of proof only by opinion of handwriting expert”. Before his arrest, Abdul Tawwab had been working as Assistant Sub-Registrar in the births and deaths registration department, Malegaon Municipal Corporation (MMC). Parveen had been working under him as a Data Entry/Computer Operator.
“The chargesheet disclosed specimen handwriting and signature panchanamas in respect of four accused persons only i.e. Accused Nos. 13, 14, 18 and 20 for reference to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Pune. However, it is seen that no such panchnama was drawn in respect of Applicant although she was in police custody during the very same period. This is an important circumstance.” the HC observed.
The HC said on the basis of the material placed on its record, prima facie, a case for bail is made out by the accused while observing that as the merits thereof will be adjudicated at the trial stage. “Mere suspicion without concrete evidence cannot take the place of certainty. Hence, in view of the aforesaid prima facie observations, following order is passed,” the HC observed.
The HC while granting bail imposed stringent conditions on the accused and has asked her to mark her presence in the trial court on first Tuesday of every month. She has also been ordered to attend the trial court on all dates unless specifically exempted and directed that she will not seek any unnecessary adjournments.
