Gujarat High Court
Yogesh Kanaiyalal Trivedi vs State Of Gujarat on 11 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2985/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 2985
of 2025
==========================================================
YOGESH KANAIYALAL TRIVEDI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
ARBAAZKHAN A PATHAN (9532) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MOHAMADZAID I SAIYED(8411) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 11/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondent State.
2. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the applicant-accused has prayed for enlarging the Applicant on anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR be i ng C. R. No . 1 1 1 9 1 0 1 1 2 4 0 1 6 6 of 2024 registered wit h D.C.B. Police Station, District - Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:31:21 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2985/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined
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. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that considering the 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. Learned APP has submitted that the applicant had actively participated in commission of offence as the applicant had signed along with the other co- accused on the cheques which were deposited in the account of other co-accused and the amount had been withdrawn subsequently. Learned APP has therefore prayed that the present Application may be dismissed.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:31:21 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2985/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined
6. From the record it appears that the applicant was an employee of the bank in question and he is alleged to have signed the cheques as the joint signatory to the other co-accused and on the basis of said signature, the amount had been transferred to the account of the other co- accused and thereafter, the same had been withdrawn. However, except signing the said cheques, no other overtact has been attributed to the present applicant and there is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant herein had financially gained out of the offence in question. The record also indicates that the applicant herein appeared before the Investigating Officer and has co-operated with the investigation. Having regard to these facts, this Court is 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 Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:31:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2985/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined
(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 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 Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:31:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2985/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined would be liberal to exercise the discretion.
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 the aforesaid F.I.R. on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- 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 8. 02 . 20 2 5 between 12.00 Noon and 2.00 p.m.;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise 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 Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:31:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2985/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined 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; and
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) NABILA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 12 22:31:21 IST 2025