Gujarat High Court
Karansinh Pratapsinh Merjibava ... vs State Of Gujarat on 21 December, 2021
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
R/CR.MA/4105/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4105 of 2021
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5798 of 2021
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5444 of 2021
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10347 of 2021
==========================================================
KARANSINH PRATAPSINH MERJIBAVA RAJ
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
Criminal Misc. Application No. 4105/2021, 5798/2021, 5444/2021
SHRI S.I.NANAVATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR VANDAN K BAXI(5863)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS PRACHITI V SHAH(9990) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NANAVATI & NANAVATI(1933) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. MOXA THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance:
Criminal Misc. Application No. 10347/2021
MR KALRAV R PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS PRACHITI V SHAH(9990) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NANAVATI & NANAVATI(1933) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. MOXA THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 21/12/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri S.I.Nanavati appearing with the
learned Advocates for the Applicants in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 4105
of 2021, 5798/2021 and 5444/2021 and learned Advocate Mr. Kalrav R. Patel
for the Applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 10347 of 2021 and learned
APP Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the Respondent - State of Gujarat.
2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants - accused persons have prayed for
R/CR.MA/4105/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2021
anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR I - C R No. 1 2 0 o f 2 0 1 8
r egistered with Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned Advocate for the Applicants have submitted that the
Applicants are apprehending their 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 Applicants
have submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the
role attributed to the Applicants, discretion may be exercised and the present
applications may be allowed. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Nanavati has
submitted that the role attributed to the present Applicants in comparison to the
coaccused named Kenny Vilas Venkatesh is lesser since the present Applicants
have signed the cheque.
4. Learned Advocate for the Applicants have further argued that the
applicants will keep themselves available during the course of investigation
and trial also and will not flee from justice.
5. Learned advocate for the applicants, on instruction, states
that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions
including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating
Agency to file an application before the competent Court for their remand. He
further submitted that upon filing of such application by the Investigating
Agency, the right of applicants accused to oppose such application on merits
may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the
above facts, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the
R/CR.MA/4105/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2021
nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP has submitted that the
investigation be continued.
7. 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 offences,
role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at
this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.
8. This Court has considered following aspects,
(a) The role attributed to the Applicants is lesser in comparison to the
co-accused named Kenny Vilas Venkatesh, who is enlarged on
Anticipatory Bail by the learned Judge, Court No. 29, City Civil &
Sessions Court, Ahmedabad vide order dated 29.6.2021 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 4211 of 2021 and the another co-
accused named Randhirsinh Bhagwandas Jadav has been enlarged on
Regular Bail by Coordinate Bench vide order dated 27.9.2021 passed in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 12457 of 2021.
(b) 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 applicants.
9. 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,
R/CR.MA/4105/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2021
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.
This court has also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (CR.) No 5191/2021 in the
case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
Dated 7.10.2021.
10. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicants are
ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with
FIR I - C R No. 1 2 0 o f 2 0 1 8 r egistered with Sabarmati Police Station,
Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465,
466, 467, 468, 471, 477 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on
executing a personal bond of Rs. 15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each
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 2 1 .1.2022
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;
R/CR.MA/4105/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/12/2021
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the
investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change their
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
(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for
remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would
decide the remand application without being influenced of the observations
made by this Court;
11. The applicants shall remain present before the learned Magistrate
on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions,
as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat
the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application
of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the
right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately,
granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request
in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded
to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall
be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail
order.
12. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
13. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(A. C. JOSHI,J)
56 / J.N.W
