Sandip Chimanbhai Panchal vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 3633 Guj

       R/CR.MA/16356/2020                                       ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16356 of 2020
==========================================================
                SANDIP CHIMANBHAI PANCHAL
                           Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.CHITRAJIT UPADHYAYA WITH MR.YASH G PATEL(9316) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. NISHA THAKOR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

                            Date : 02/03/2021
                             ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr.Chitrajit Upadhyaya, learned advocate with Mr. Yash G. Patel, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms. Nisha Thakor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent

- State through video conference.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in connection with First Information Report being C.R.No.11215002200162 of 2020 registered with Anand Town Police Station, Anand for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 397, 114, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 25(1-b) (a) and 28 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Chitrajit Upadhyaya appearing with learned advocate Mr.Yash G. Patel for the applicant, at the outset, submitted that investigation is over and chargesheet is filed, and therefore, no purpose would be served keeping the

R/CR.MA/16356/2020 ORDER

applicant in jail. The applicant has a family comprising, aged parents, wife and children of his brother i.e. co-accused and that both, the applicant and his real brother are in jail since 7.3.2020. The applicant is sole earning member and after his arrest, there is no one to take care of his family and resultantly, the family is in a devastating state.

3.1 Though the investigation is completed, followed by filing of the chargesheet, the case has not been committed to the Court of Sessions and considering the said aspect, continuance of the applicant in jail would be improper and more particularly, when the applicant was not identified by any of witnesses during the Test Identification Parade, except the one, who has worked with the applicant. Further, during the Test Identification Parade, one of the witnesses has identified the applicant, the same should not be considered, inasmuch as, the applicant was known to the witness during his tenure, when working with the bank, i.e. during the period from January 2019 to July 2019.

3.2 Mr.Upadhyaya, learned advocate, upon instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit the amount, which falls short and could not be recovered during the investigation. It is stated that the applicant may be released on regular bail by imposing stringent conditions, as the Court may deem fit. Lastly, reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand @ Baliay, reported in 1977 (4) SCC 308. It is thus urged that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on regular bail.

R/CR.MA/16356/2020 ORDER

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Nisha Thakor, appearing for the respondent - State while vehemently opposing the application has submitted that investigation reveals that the car, which was used in the alleged incident was of the friend of the applicant, which was borrowed by him under the pretext of attending the proposal for marriage. It is submitted that though the incident had taken place on 23.2.2020, the amount could be recovered after five months. Further, the bundles, were having the seal of the concerned bank. As per the investigation, the amount of Rs.84,49,350/- was recovered from the house of the applicant and more particularly, from his own room. Further, one of the witnesses has identified the applicant during Test Identification Parade. Considering the fact that the applicant had in past served with the bank, during the period from January 2019 to July 2019, the applicant was very much aware about the functioning as well as internal operations of the bank. Therefore, there was a clear intention on the part of the applicant and others to commit robbery, which has been done so in collusion with each other. Therefore, there is not an iota of doubt that the applicant is not involved in the whole incident. It is therefore urged that the present application does not deserve to be entertained.

5. Learned advocates for the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective 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, so also the celebrated principle that the basic rule is to grant bail, except

R/CR.MA/16356/2020 ORDER

where, there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, without discussing the evidence in detail, this court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

7. Pertinently, this court has considered several aspects, including the aspect that (i) the investigation is over and chargsheet is filed; (ii) the applicant is in jail since 7.3.2020;

(iii) the applicant has no criminal antecedents; (iv) during the Test Identification Parade, except one witness, none of the witnesses, have identified the applicant; (v) the witness, who had identified the applicant, was known to the applicant, while the applicant was working in the bank during the period from January 2019 to July 2019; (vi) Further, so far, the case is not even committed to the Court of Sessions. Therefore, considering the principle laid down in the Balchand @ Baliay (supra) as well as the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant.

8. Under the circumstances, the present application deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with First Information Report being C.R.No.11215002200162 of 2020 registered with Anand Town Police Station, Anand, on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the

R/CR.MA/16356/2020 ORDER

satisfaction of the Trial Court and subject to the conditions that the applicant shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] mark his presence before the concerned police station twice in every English calendar month between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. for a period of six months, and thereafter, once in every English calendar month between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m for a period of one year;

[f] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned trial court;

[g] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court.

[h] The applicant shall deposit an amount of Rs.4,48,600/- before the Session Court concerned within a period of four weeks from the date of releasing on regular bail.

9. The authorities shall adhere to its own circular regarding Covid- 19 and thereafter release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time

R/CR.MA/16356/2020 ORDER

being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the learned Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

10. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.

11. Needless to say, at the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this court in the present order.

12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned court/authority through fax or e-mail, forthwith. Direct service is permitted.

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) RAVI P. PATEL