Gujarat High Court
Maheshbhai @ Bhankubhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 21 June, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
R/CR.MA/9638/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9638 of 2021
==========================================================
MAHESHBHAI @ BHANKUBHAI BHUPATBHAI BASIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. NIPUL H GONDALIA(6894) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS.M.K.THAKKAR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 21/06/2021
ORAL ORDER
[1] Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties by video
conferencing.
[2] RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent - State.
[3] By way of the present application filed under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has
prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being
C.R.No.11193003210157 of 2021 registered with Amreli City
Police Station, Amreli for the offences under Sections 420, 406 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
[4] The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:-
The complainant is one Dharmendrabhai Bhikhubhai
R/CR.MA/9638/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021
Sidhpura who has filed the complaint alleging that on 13.02.2021
the present applicant and the complainant being good friends;
before 3 years back, the present applicant had asked the
complainant that he wants to purchase one car in the name of the
complainant and the applicant is ready to pay monthly installment,
hence the car was purchased. Thereafter, almost some years the
applicant paid regularly car installments and after some couple of
months, the applicant was unable to pay the bank installments.
On 13.02.2021, the present FIR came to be filed against the
applicant. The applicant had preferred Anticipatory Bail before the
Sessions Court vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 205 of 2021
before the Sessions Judge at Amreli which came to be rejected
vide judgment dated 28.04.2021.
[5] Learned advocate Mr.Kishan Prajapati for learned advocate
Mr. Nipul Gondalia for the applicant, on instructions of the
applicant, has submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to
deposit the loan amount which comes to Rs.2,40,000/-
approximately within a period of four weeks. Learned advocate for
the applicant, on further instructions, states that the applicant is
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 his remand. He
further submits that upon filing of such application by the
investigating agency, the right of the applicant accused to oppose
such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate,
therefore, submits that considering the above facts, the applicant
may be granted bail.
R/CR.MA/9638/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021
[6] On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed grant
of bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
[7] Having heard 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 bail to the
applicant.
[8] This Court has considered following aspects;
(a) The applicant is ready and willing to deposit the default
amount before the concerned Bank from which the loan was
obtained.
(c) Considering the facts of the case custodial interrogation of
the applicant at this stage is not necessary.
Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the
present case, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant.
[9] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down
by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct
of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 831 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312.
[10] In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant
is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with FIR being C.R.No.11193003210157 of 2021
R/CR.MA/9638/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021
registered with Amreli City Police Station, Amreli on his executing
a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with
one surety of like amount on the following conditions that he :
(a) shall file an undertaking before this Court that he will deposit
an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- approximately in the Bank which is the
approximate loan amount from the month of May-2020 onwards
within a period of one month. In the event of non deposit of the
amount before the Bank the present order granting anticipatory
bail shall stand revocked.
(b) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself
available for interrogation whenever required;
(c) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on
28.06.2021 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(d) 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;
(e) 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;
(g) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the
investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change
his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;
R/CR.MA/9638/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021
(h) 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.
[11] Despite this order, it would be open for the investigating
agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of
the applicant, if he considers it proper and just and the Magistrate
would decide it on merits.. The applicant shall remain present
before the concerned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of
such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be
directed by the concerned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to
treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of
entertaining the 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 concerned 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 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] The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to send
a copy of this order to the concerned authority/court through Fax
R/CR.MA/9638/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021
message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.
[14] Learned advocate for the applicant is also permitted to send
a copy of this order to the concerned authority/court through Fax
message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
VARSHA DESAI
