Gujarat High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Journalist Mahesh Langa In FIR Alleging Theft Of 'Confidential' Govt Documents

The Gujarat High Court on Friday (March 21) granted anticipatory bail to journalist Mahesh Langa booked in an FIR for alleged corruption, criminal conspiracy and theft where he is accused of obtaining "highly confidential government documents" which are stated to belong to the Gujarat Maritime Board(GMB). 

However Langa is presently in judicial custody in a case pertaining to alleged GST fraud; the high court had earlier rejected his regular bail plea. 

Justice Hasmukh D Suthar while dictating the order said, "...prima facie it appears that present applicant is not a government servant. In aid of Section 8 and 12 PC Act he is arraigned as an accused as he has abetted an offence. Applicant has been arrested in another offence under GST allegations but he has preferred present anticipatory bail in view of Dhanraj Aswani v/s Amar S Mulchandani (2024) there is no bar to entertain anticipatory bail of accused in judicial custody". 

The court also noted that it is only addressing the case for the limited purpose with respect to the arguments addressed by the counsel for parties and not for any other purpose. It further noted that a coordinate bench had already dismissed Langa's plea to quash the FIR which had said that prima facie offence is made out. 

"However while deciding anticipatory bail application the court has to consider the liberty of a person who applies for anticipatory bail, and...nature of allegations levelled against applicant, and larger societal and public interest is required to be considered," the court said. 

On the allegations against Langa the court noted that he is a journalist and has allegedly received information of the GMB.

"Perusing the record it appears that present applicant managed to receive information from GMB and he came into contact of one employee of GMB and winning over his trust he received information of GMB in connection with extending contracts of three ports. After receiving the said envelope of documents he has subsequently parted a 'gift' to said employee. On the bare perusal of the statement recorded during investigation, the envelope was handed over but nothing is clear that said envelope contained the said documents...It was a copy of the documents. If employee of GMB leaked or provided such confidential information of office to any third party which amounts to civil services conduct rules for that he will have to face consequences," the court said. 

It noted that if such sensitive information which adversely affects integrity of a nation and larger public interest then that is punishable under Official Secrets Act but the provisions of the Act had not been invoked in the present case. 

With respect to invocation of PC Act the court said that to offer illegal gratification is a cognizable offence and a "mere attempt" under Section 7(a)(Offence relating to public servant being bribed) PC Act is also an offence. 

"Herein (there is) no any evidence which suggests that to collect the information the present applicant has provided illegal gratification. From perusing the statements it appears that he has provided 'gift'. So far as said alleged gift is received by employee of GMB, he is a proposed accused or accused whatever may be, but as per Gujarat CCS Rules (Conduct) Rule 13(2) permits government servant may accept gift category wise...As to whether said gift is provided for any other purpose or what is not prohibited under disciplinary and conduct rules also. In absence of any explanation that the said amount was provided towards illegal gratification, question doesn't arise to presume that said amount was for alleged illegal gratification and present applicant has committed any criminal misconduct. Even otherwise it is needless to say that incase of conspiracy direct evidence would be hardly be available, it is required to be inferred from attending circumstances," the court said.

The court said that it is not going into whether offence is made out or not in view of coordinate bench's order which refused to quash FIR; the court however said that merely keeping copy of the information does not amount to offence alleged.

"Prima facie  it appears that present applicant has not caused wrongful loss to the government...no one has filed any complaint who has suffered any loss due to such act. Considering aforesaid fact prima facie no material suggests that larger public interest is being jeopardized by present applicant...In absence of any evidence of criminal misconduct, absence of any illegal gratification or any such recovery or demand of illegal gratification, question doesn't arise to reject the present application," the court said. 

Referring to Supreme Court decisions, Justice Suthar further said that to decide bail applications court has to exercise discretionary power and criminal matters are to be decided on own merits and facts rather to rely on pronouncements of apex court or coordinate bench. 

"Nothing is to be recovered from accused as documents were seized by authority. Applicant is ready to join the investigation. As offence is punishable upto seven years application deserves consideration," the court added. 

It further added that as the applicant is a reporter and he is not supposed to disclose source of information as law laid down by Supreme Court, hence no custodial interrogation is required. However Langa's counsel on instruction said that Langa is ready and willing to join investigation. 

The court thus allowed the petition.

The FIR has been registered under BNS Sections 316(5) (Criminal Breach of Trust by public servants, bankers, merchants and other professionals), 303(2) (Theft), 306 (Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master), 61(2) (Criminal conspiracy) and Sections 7(a)(Undue advantage to influence a public servant), 8 (Bribing a public servant), 12 (Punishment for abatement of offences), 13(1)(a) (Criminal misconduct by a public servant), 13(2) (Punishment for a public servant who commits criminal misconduct) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A detailed copy of the order is awaited. 

Case Title: Maheshan Prabhudan Langa vs State of Gujarat & Ors

R/CR.MA/5680/2025