Pratikbhai Mukeshbhai Dungarani vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 2271 Guj

          R/CR.MA/14473/2020                                           ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14473 of 2020
==========================================================
                    PRATIKBHAI MUKESHBHAI DUNGARANI
                                  Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.RAJESH B SONI(2632) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN

                                Date : 12/02/2021
                                  ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this successive application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed to direct the Investigating officer of C.R. No.I-11192064200035 of 2020 registered before Dholka Rural Police Station to release the applicant in the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No.I-11192064200035 of 2020 registered before Dholka Rural Police Station on 08.02.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, on suitable terms and conditions that may be deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. Heard Mr.Rajesh B. Soni, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.J.K. Shah, learned APP for the respondent- State.

3. Mr.Rajesh Soni, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Court which was rejected on 25.02.2020. Thereafter, the applicant approached Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but his anticipatory bail

R/CR.MA/14473/2020 ORDER

application being Criminal Misc. Application No.4603 of 2020 was rejected vide order dated 16.03.2020. Thereafter, the applicant filed Special Criminal Application for direction to consider letter dated 07.02.2020 and quash the FIR, but that application was also rejected. The applicant again moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Court which was rejected on 07.09.2020 and as such thereafter, the applicant has moved this successive anticipatory bail application before this Court. Mr.Soni, learned advocate has submitted that in earlier round of litigation of anticipatory bail, this Hon'ble Court has orally directed to deposit some amount, but from the record, the applicant was able to show the disputed amount was not misappropriated and the applicant was not ready to deposit the amount and obtained a reasoned order of rejection of the anticipatory bail to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court, but due to COVID-19 situation, the applicant was not able to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also submitted that the investigation is almost over and the Investigating Officer is able to find out regarding loan of both the accounts. It is further submitted that the applicant has not played any role in getting the loan amount of the farmers and farmers have taken loan and it was paid in the account of Kisan Suvidha Card. It is also submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has not taken into consideration some of the points and under those change in circumstances, again this successive application for anticipatory bail is filed which is maintainable.

4. On the other hand, Mr.J.K. Shah, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant was serving as a Secretary in Trasad Seva Sahkari Mandali and he has taken signatures of farmers and applied for loan and has

R/CR.MA/14473/2020 ORDER

taken loan and embezzled the amount for his personal use. It is also submitted that the record clearly reveals that the applicant has filed notarized Undertaking wherein he has confessed that the loan granted to seven farmers are utilized by him for his personal purpose. It is also submitted that statements of the farmers have also been recorded wherein involvement of the present applicant-accused is clearly revealed. It is also submitted that the amount of Rs.15,89,757/- has been misappropriated by the present applicant. Moreover, it is also submitted that the applicant is the sole accused in the FIR which was registered by one Bipinbhai and the applicant worked as a Secretary of Sahkari Mandali. The agriculturists and farmers who were absolutely illiterate have been cheated along with the Mandali of which the present applicant was a Secretary. It is also submitted that the applicant issued cheques bearing nos.95, 96 and 97 of total Rs.13,15,000/- of the A.D.C. Bank in the name of the Mandali. However, all the cheques were dishonoured on 24.09.2020 for which again complaints against the present applicant has been lodged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, it is vehemently submitted that the applicant has taken active part in the commission of the offence and has misappropriated huge amount and there is prima facie case and hence it is submitted that no relief can be granted to the applicant and prayed to reject the application.

Moreover, it is further submitted that the application preferred by the applicant for anticipatory bail earlier on the same grounds and same averments has been rejected by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.03.2020 which has not been challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble Apex Court and again after a span of ten months, the present successive anticipatory bail application has been filed, which is not

R/CR.MA/14473/2020 ORDER

maintainable and is required to be rejected.

5. Considering the submissions of both the sides and perusing the contents of the application, affidavit of the Investigating Officer and papers on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and the role attributed to the present applicant and even the glaring fact that the cheques given by the applicant, subsequently after his admission of the offence, in the name of Mandali are also dishonoured, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant who has played a pivotal role in commission of the offence. Moreover, as regards the maintainability of the successive bail application is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported in case of G.R. Ananda Babu vs The State of Tamil Nadu in SLP (Crl.)No.213 of 2021 decided on 28.01.2021 has observed that, "As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order."

In the present case also, a speaking order has been passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant on 16/3/2020. Thereafter, from March, 2020, till the present application has been filed, neither the applicant has surrendered, nor has challenged the aforesaid order before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, the reasoned order passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation has become final and conclusive. As such, the

R/CR.MA/14473/2020 ORDER

applicant is evading his arrest and he can be termed as an absconder, otherwise the applicant could have shown his genuineness either by challenging the order or by surrendering before the authorities which the applicant has not done and the averments in the application filed by the applicant also do not clear any kind of change of circumstances which were not taken care of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while passing the order dated 16.03.2020. Even otherwise, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.R. Ananda Babu (supra) successive anticipatory bail applications cannot be entertained and the specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to use discretion in favour of the applicant and therefore, the present application is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.

(RAJENDRA M. SAREEN,J) TAUSIF SAIYED