Gujarat High Court
Vasimmiya Mustufamiya Malek vs State Of Gujarat on 29 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1873/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 1873
of 2025
==========================================================
VASIMMIYA MUSTUFAMIYA MALEK
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIN G PANDYA(3999) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. VINAY VISHEN, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 29/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant 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 0 4 0 4 5 2 4 0 3 7 2 o f 2 0 2 4 registered wit h Nadiad Rural Police Station, Kheda for the offe nce s puni sha bl e unde r S ec tions 420, 409, 465, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent - State.
Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice 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 4 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:08:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1873/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025 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. Learned APP submitted that the present Applicant had misappropriated the amount of Rs.2,67,000/- by making some alterations in the pay-in-slips which were to be filled in the Bank. Learned APP has therefore prayed that the present Application may be dismissed.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. As per the case of the prosecution, while working as an employee in the Bank the Applicant is alleged to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,67,000/- and for the said purpose, the Applicant is also alleged to have altered the pay-in-slips of the Bank. The Applicant herein has deposited the said amount with the Bank. The other co-accused similarly situated to the Applicant herein, who have deposited the amount in the Bank have been considered for grant of anticipatory bail.
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.
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:08:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1873/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
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 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 a F I R be i ng No . 1 1 2 0 4 0 4 5 2 4 0 3 7 2 o f 2 0 2 4 registered wit h Nadiad Rural Police Station, Kheda for the offe nce s puni sha bl e unde r S ec tions 420, 409, 465, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 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;
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:08:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1873/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined (b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 5 . 0 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
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; 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) J.N.W / 20 Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:08:04 IST 2025