Gujarat High Court
Kaminiben Utsav Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 7 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24540/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 24540
of 2024
==========================================================
KAMINIBEN UTSAV PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAAJEN D JADHAV(10026) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. SURAJ A SHUKLA(7185) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS MONALI H. BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 07/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant-accused has prayed for enlarging the Applicant on anticipatory bail in connection with the F I R be i ng C. R. No . 1 1 2 1 0 0 4 7 2 4 1 8 5 1 o f 2 0 2 4 registered wit h Udhna Police Station, Surat.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned advocate for the original complainant and learned APP for the Respondent - State.
2.1 Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State.
3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant is apprehending arrest in connection the aforesaid FIR and in this connection the earlier application filed by the Applicant before the learned Sessions Court came to be dis-allowed. He submitted that considering the Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 02:33:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24540/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2025 undefined facts stated in the Application, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He submitted that the applicant happens to be partner in the firm namely KU Overseas which was actively involved in the commission of the offence in question. Learned APP has therefore prayed that the present Application may be dismissed.
4.1 Learned advocate for the original complainant has also opposed the present application contending that the applicant herein had talked to either the first informant or his son on several occasions which indicates the involvement of the present applicant in the offence in question. Moreover, the firm wherein the present applicant is a partner had supplied a forged offer letter to the first informant. Therefore, the offence of forgery is also required to be added in the FIR. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 02:33:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24540/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2025 undefined
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. As per the case of prosecution, the first informant had approached the other co- accused for obtaining Visa for United Kingdom. The said co-accused had assigned the work of Visa of the first informant to the other co-accused namely Gaurang Patel and money which had been paid by the first informant to the co- accused namely Chirag Sihora had been transferred by the said Chirag Sihora to the other co-accused Gaurang Patel. The husband of the present applicant has also been arraigned as an accused in the present offenec who has been considered by this court for anticipatory bail vide order dated 18.12.2024. The role attributed to the present applicant is more or less similar to the role attributed to her husband. Considering the same, the present Application deserves to be allowed.
6. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and the role attributed to the accused, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
7. This Court has considered following aspects,
(a) as per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court there are mainly two factors which are required to be considered by this court;
(i) prima facie case
(ii) requirement of accused for custodial interrogation.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is inclined to consider the case of the applicant.
8. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 02:33:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24540/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2025 undefined Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565. Further, this Court has also taken into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. in Special Leave Petition No. 7281- 7282/2017 dated 29.01.2020.
8.1 This court has also considered the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observe that whenever there is punishment of 7 years, then the court would be liberal to exercise the discretion. Further, by exercising the discretion under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the doors of remand by the Investigating Officer is open and therefore also this court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
9. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with a F I R be i ng C. R. No . 1 1 2 1 0 0 4 7 2 4 1 8 5 1 o f 2 0 2 4 registered wit h Udhna Police Station, Surat on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions;
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 1 4 . 2 . 2 0 2 5 between 12.00 Noon and 2.00 p.m.;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 02:33:44 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24540/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week;
10. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) Manshi Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MANSHI HARISHBHAI AMIN(HC01561) on Fri Feb 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 08 02:33:44 IST 2025