Dipakbhai @ Chikubhai S/O ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 5389 Guj

              R/CR.MA/4131/2021                                       ORDER




               IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD

                 R/CRIMINALMISC.APPLICATIONNO. 4131of 2021

==============================================================================
      DIPAKBHAI @ CHIKUBHAI S/O HASMUKHABHAI MAHIDA VANKAR
                              Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
==============================================================================
Appearance:
MS MEENA VYAS (3315)for the Applicant(s)No. 1
MR AJAY L PANDAV(3660)for the Respondent(s)No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (2) for the Respondent(s)No. 1
==============================================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                        Date: 06/05/2021

                                         ORALORDER

The matter was earlier listed before this Court on 05.05.2021 and after arguing the matter for some time, learned advocate Ms. Meena Vyas appearing for the applicant requested to list the matter for today. Accordingly, the matter was listed for hearing today and both the sides were heard exhaustively.

1. This application has been preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in connection with the complaint being FIR No.11204045210031 registered with Nadiad Rural Police Station, Kheda for offences punishable under Sections 170, 406, 419 and 420 of IPC.

R/CR.MA/4131/2021 ORDER

2. The facts in brief, as can be gathered from the complaint, are as under:­

Some time in the year 2018, the elder daughter of Dakshaben W/o. Kantibhai Dudhabhai Solani, the complainant herein, had entered into a marriage against the wish of her family. Under the belief that their daughter had been abducted and forced to enter into the marriage, the complainant and her husband approached the concerned Police Station for filing an FIR against her husband. It appears that during that period, the applicant herein, original accused, introduced himself to the complainant as a Police Officer serving with the Crime Branch at Ahmedabad and that he could assist them in their daughter's case. Under the pretext of settling the legal issue of their daughter, the applicant collected different sums from the complainant and her family members at different times, totaling Rs.4,00,000/­.

3. Learned advocate Ms. Meena Vyas appearing for the applicant­accused submitted that the applicant is a Journalist / Reporter by profession. The complainant has narrated false facts in the complaint with a view to extort money from the applicant. Being a Journalist / Reporter, the applicant was known to several

R/CR.MA/4131/2021 ORDER

lawyers and with a view to assist the complainant and her family members in the different litigations in which they were entangled, the applicant had helped them in engaging lawyers. However, a false complaint came to be filed against the applicant as none of the ingredients of the offences alleged are made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence is less than seven years and that the applicant, being a Journalist and a respectable member in the society, would not evade the trial. It was, accordingly, urged that discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant by granting him anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Bhatt, assisted by learned advocate Mr. A.L. Pandav for the original complainant, submitted that the applicant had posed himself as a Police Officer of the Crime Branch not only before the complainant and her family but before other persons too. It is not that for the first time the applicant has duped individuals by posing himself as a Police Officer. She drew attention of the Court to the police report to point out the instances where the applicant herein has duped people by posing as Police Officer. It was further submitted that the allegations made

R/CR.MA/4131/2021 ORDER

against the applicant are very serious in nature and an in­depth investigation is necessary. It was, therefore, prayed that no discretion may be exercised in his favour.

5. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. The main allegation against the applicant is of posing as a Police Officer before the complainant and her family members with an intention to defraud them. It appears that for such purpose, the applicant had also prepared a forged Identity Card of the Police Department so as to secure the confidence and trust of the persons whom he wanted to defraud.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced on record the police report dated 22.04.2021, which reveals that the complainant was not the first individual who has been duped by the applicant of their hard­earned money. Along with the report, the police has produced statement of one Anand Vijaybhai Shukla recorded on 16.04.2021, who has narrated in detail the modus operandi adopted by the applicant for defrauding him with his hard­earned money. Before the said individual also, the applicant had posed himself as a Police Officer of the Crime Branch. The police have also recorded the statement of

R/CR.MA/4131/2021 ORDER

one Balrambhai @ Kishorbhai, S/o. Chainmal Gurnani, who has also narrated similar facts. In his statement, the said individual has categorically stated that the applicant had defrauded him by posing as a Police Officer. Thus, from the police report and the accompanying statements, it appears that the applicant is a habitual offender, whose modus operandi appears to be to pose as a Police Officer of the Crime Branch before persons who are entangled in legal issues and thereafter, defraud them of their hard­earned money under the pretext of getting their legal issues settled in the police department as also in the Courts of Law.

7. There is one more issue in the matter, which requires serious consideration. Along with the written objections, the complainant has produced the "chat messages" on "WhatsApp" that took place between the applicant and Vijaybhai Shukla, father of Anand Vijaybhai Shukla, whose statement has been recorded by the police on 16.04.2021 and which has been produced on record along with the police report. In the said "chat messages", the applicant is said to be saying to said Vijaybhai Shukla that he is at the residence of a High Court Judge, who has assured a positive outcome. There are also "messages" where the applicant has raised demand of Rs.7.85 Lacs before said

R/CR.MA/4131/2021 ORDER

Vijaybhai Sukla. A "message" regarding assault on some "Accrue pakado" and the said person of having sustained fracture injuries and of his hospitalization in the Civil Hospital also forms part of the "chat messages".

8. A detailed inquiry into the issue is warranted. If we consider the allegations made in the present compliant in light of the police report dated 22.04.2021 and the statement of Anand Vijaybhai Shukla dated 16.04.2021, it appears that the applicant is a habitual offender, who is indulged in the illegal activity of defrauding people under the garb of being a Reporter / Journalist. The allegations made against the applicant are serious in nature and require detailed investigation and for such purpose, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary.

9. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in [2011] 1 SCC 694, the Apex Court has discussed about the factors and parameters that may be taken into consideration while dealing with an application for anticipatory bail. Paragraph­122 of the judgment reads thus:­

R/CR.MA/4131/2021 ORDER

"(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair

R/CR.MA/4131/2021 ORDER

and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

10. Considering the allegations made against the applicant in the complaint and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, this Court does not deem this to be a fit case wherein the applicant could be released on anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.

11. In the result, the application is dismissed.

( GITA GOPI, J )

PRAVIN KARUNAN