Vasantlal Ramanlal Shah vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 14784 Guj

     R/SCR.A/8450/2021                              ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8450 of 2021

================================================================
                         VASANTLAL RAMANLAL SHAH
                                   Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                              Date : 22/09/2021

                               ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed for quashing and setting

aside order dated 06.04.2021 passed by 10th Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Misc.Application No.702 of

2021 with a further prayer to stay condition No.1 imposed upon the

petitioner vide order dated 25.03.2021 in Criminal Misc.Application

No.2497 of 2020.

2. The petitioner petitioner is an accused of FIR being I-

CR No.185 of 2001 registered with Raopura Police Station,

Vadodara for offences under Sections 406 and 114 of the Indian

Penal Code, in which the petitioner was granted bail. As per the

condition of bail, the petitioner had deposited his passport with the

trial Court at the relevant time. After completion of trial, the

petitioner came to be acquitted by judgment and order dated

30.09.2019 by 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in

R/SCR.A/8450/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

Criminal Case No.36008 of 2001.

2.1 After acquittal, bail bonds of the petitioner were

cancelled and as per Section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code,

new bail bonds were executed. The petitioner thereafter filed an

application before the trial Court on 14.10.2019 seeking permission

to return the passport for renewal purpose. By order dated

18.10.2019, the said application was allowed and passport of the

petitioner was returned to him and after renewal, the petitioner

has redeposited the same.

2.2 Against the order of acquittal dated 30.09.2019, appeal

came to be preferred against the petitioner being Criminal Appeal

No.354 of 2019. The petitioner preferred Criminal

Misc.Application No.2497 of 2020 praying to release of his

passport in view of his acquittal and also prayed to refund

Rs.1,00,000/-, deposited by him as security deposit. The said

application came to be allowed by order dated 25.03.2021,

whereby certain conditions were imposed, i.e. to execute personal

bond of Rs.15,000/- with solvent surety of the like amount. The

petitioner was directed not to leave India without prior permission

of the appellate Court. The petitioner accordingly executed

personal bond and also gave solvent surety as aforesaid.

2.3 The petitioner thereafter filed Criminal

Misc.Application No.702 of 2021 praying for modification /deletion

R/SCR.A/8450/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

of condition of not to leave India imposed vide order dated

25.03.2021 in Criminal Misc.Application No.2497 of 2020, in view

of the fact that he is already acquitted in Criminal Case; he has

already executed fresh bail bonds and had also filed undertaking

that as and when he goes abroad, he shall supply address and

telephone numbers to the appellate Court. The said application

came to be rejected by impugned order dated 06.04.2021.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is already acquitted after due trial in Criminal Case. The

petitioner has also complied with each and every condition

mentioned in the judgment and order of acquittal.

3.1 It is submitted that as per Section 437A of the Criminal

Procedure Code, there is only provision that in case, appeal is filed

against order of acquittal, for securing presence of petitioner, bail

bonds and surety are to be taken, which the petitioner has already

executed.

3.2 It is submitted that son of the petitioner is residing at

USA and the petitioner is frequently required to go abroad and if

every time he will have to take permission, it will cause hardship to

the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is having movable

and immovable properties in Vadodara city and there is no chance

that the petitioner will abscond. Moreover, the petitioner has also

given undertaking before the appellate Court that he will remain

R/SCR.A/8450/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

present as and when required.

4. Learned APP opposed the petition submitting that the

orders passed by the appellate Court are just and proper and as

appeal proceedings are going on, presence of the petitioner would

be required.

5. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and

having perused the documents on record, it appears that FIR being

I-CR No.185 of 2001 was registered with Raopura Police Station,

Vadodara for offences under Sections 406 and 114 of the Indian

Penal Code, in which the petitioner was granted bail. After

completion of trial, the petitioner came to be acquitted by judgment

and order dated 30.09.2019 by 4 th Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No.36008 of 2001.

6. As per Section 437A of the Criminal Procedure Code,

there is only provision that in case, appeal is filed against order of

acquittal, for securing presence of petitioner, bail bonds and surety

are to be taken, which the petitioner has already executed.

7. As submitted by learned Advocate for the petitioner,

son of the petitioner is residing at USA and the petitioner is

frequently required to go abroad and if every time he will have to

take permission, it will cause hardship to the petitioner. The

petitioner is also having movable and immovable properties in

Vadodara city and there is no chance that the petitioner will

R/SCR.A/8450/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

abscond. Moreover, the petitioner has also given undertaking

before the appellate Court that he will remain present as and when

required. The petitioner has also complied with each and every

condition mentioned in the judgment and order of acquittal.

8. This Court by judgment and order dated 05.05.2017 in

the matter of Farha Wife of Salim Ibrahim Sikora & Ors. Vs.

State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No.9874 of

2016 has observed in para-18 as under:-

"18. It appears from the materials on record that on registration of the acquittal appeal filed by the State, the Appellate Court has not asked the applicant No.1 herein to furnish any bail. In my view, the entire procedure adopted by both the courts below is incorrect and not tenable in law. There was no reason for the Appellate Court to relegate the applicants to the Trial Court for the purpose of release of their passports. Since the appeal has been filed in the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court, being the Appellate Court, should have passed an appropriate order as regards the passports of the applicants. I am of the view that the applicant No.1, being acquitted of all the charges, mere pendency of the acquittal appeal filed by the State, cannot be a ground to reject the prayer for release of the passports. The Trial Court could not have even asked the applicant No.1 to furnish the bail with a solvent surety of the like amount for the appeal period under section 437(6) of the Code. In this regard, the Trial Court overlooked a full bench decision of this Court in the case of Omprakash Tekchand Batra vs.

R/SCR.A/8450/2021 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2021

State of Gujarat, 1998 (3) GLR 2031......"

9. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The

order dated 06.04.2021 passed by 10 th Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Misc.Application No.702 of

2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. The condition of "not to lave

India" imposed by order dated 25.03.2021 in Criminal

Misc.Application No.2497 of 2020 is hereby deleted. The other

conditions remain unaltered.

10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J) SHITOLE