Gujarat High Court
Dineshbhai Chandrabhan Kukreja vs State Of Gujarat on 14 November, 2022
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.MA/17777/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17777 of 2022
==========================================================
DINESHBHAI CHANDRABHAN KUKREJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHIT S TOLIA(2708) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 14/11/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith,. Learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. By way of present application, applicant has requested to
delete/modify the conditions No. 2(d), 3 and 4 imposed by the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rajkot in the
order dated 26.08.2022 of releasing the applicant on regular
bail in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2345 of 2022.
3. Brief facts of the present case are as under:
3.1 The accused persons have committed offence punishable
under Sections 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3
of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act 2003 and
Section 22 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act,
2019 which has been registered with Nilambaug Police
R/CR.MA/17777/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2022
Station, Bhavnagar being CR No. 11198001211297 of 2021
and after arresting the applicant in connection with such
offence, applicant has approached the learned District and
Sessions Court Rajkot being Criminal Misc. Application No.
2345 of 2022 wherein the applicant was released on bail with
certain conditions and for modifying/deleting conditions No.
2(d), 3 and 4 the applicant has approached this court by way
of this application.
4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
5. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
charge sheet appears to have been filed on 07.08.2022. That
condition of depositing cash amount of RS. 67,10,013/- is not
only arbitrary but amounting to denial of bail. Thus, the case of
applicant in as much as grant of bail based on Onerous
condition deserves interference by this Court. That, in gross
ignorance of the provisions of law and despite the fact that
there is number of litigations pending before the Hon'ble Court
at Jaipur thus the learned Judge ought not to impose such
illegal, erroneous and contrary condition of depositing cash
amount. Ultimately, it was requested by learned advocate for
the applicant to allow present application.
7. On the other side, learned APP for the respondent-State
has strongly objected the submissions made by learned
R/CR.MA/17777/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2022
advocate for the applicant and submitted that the applicant is
involved in serious offence punishable under the provisions of
Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act and thus, the
condition about depositing cash amount to the tune of RS.
67,10,013/- imposed by the learned trial court while releasing
on bail is proper and thus, learned trial court has not
committed any error in imposing such condition. That the
applicant has played major role in the offence and thus, the
prayer of modifying/deleting the condition as sought for may
not be granted and ultimately, it was requested by learned APP
for the respondent-State to reject present application.
8. Having heard learned advocate for the applicant and
learned APP for the respondent-State and considering the
averments made in the present application, it is undisputed
fact that the applicant was arrested in connection with offence
punishable under Sections 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of
Depositors Act 2003 and Section 22 of the Banning of
Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 which has been
registered with Nilambaug Police Station, Bhavnagar being CR
No. 11198001211297 of 2021 wherein he was released on
bail by learned District and Sessions Judge, Rajkot on
26.08.2022 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2345 of 2022,
R/CR.MA/17777/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2022
wherein certain conditions were imposed, out of which,
conditions no. 2(d), 3 and 4 are as under:
2(d). not to leave the geographical limits of Gujarat State
without prior permission of this Court, till the trial is
over.
3. The applicant is directed to deposit Rs. 67,10,013/-
(Rupees Sixty Seven Lacs Ten thousand Thirteen only) by
way of cash with Nazir, District Rajkot ie., half of the
amount which is found to be due to be paid to the
investors by the applicant as per charge sheet, within two
weeks of his release from custody. However, the
payment/disbursement shall be subject to the provisions
of GPID Act and/or final decision of the trial.
4. If the applicant fails to submit the afore mentioned
cash amount within two weeks of his release from
custody, he shall surrender before the Jail Authority on
the fifteenth day and the Jail Authority on the fifteenth
day and the Jail Authority shall report to this court about
his surrender. In case the applicant doles not surrender
himself on the fifteenth day, the I.O. shall make him
surrender to the Jail Authority.
9. In case of Rashmikant R. Shah versus State of Gujarat
(Criminal Revision Application No. 92 of 2012) (reported in
R/CR.MA/17777/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2022
2012(0) AIJEL-HC-227200), this court has observed that
condition to deposit the amount while granting bail to accused
amounts to passing a decree without giving opportunity to the
accused in his defence.
10. In another case of "Manoj Kumar Sood and Anr v/s. State
of Jharkhand" (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.
1274 of 2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is well
settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal
proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues. It is open
to a Court to grant or refuse the prayer for bail, depending on
the facts and circumstance of the particular case. The factors to
be taken into consideration, while considering an application
for bail are, the nature of accusation and the severity of the
punishment in the case of conviction; the nature of the
materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable
apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension
of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time
of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character
behaviour and standing of the accused; the larger interest of
the public or the State and similar other considerations. A
Criminal Court, exercising jurisdiction to grant
bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent
R/CR.MA/17777/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2022
to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without
any trial.
11. While considering the bail application, conditions to be
reasonable and if any harsh condition is imposed then it
amounts to rejection or denial of bail.
12. Thus, while considering the aspects of the aforesaid two
judgments and considering the over all facts of the present
case, this court deems it fit to accept the prayer of the applicant
to delete the conditions No.3 and 4 as well as modify the
condition No.2(d) imposed while releasing the applicant on
regular bail.
14. Hence, present application stands allowed. The order
dated 26.08.2022 passed by learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2345
of 2022 stands modified and the conditions No. 3 and 4
imposed in the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 2345 of 2022 stand deleted and condition No.
2(d) stands modified to the extent that "the applicant shall not
leave the territory of India without prior permission of the
learned Sessions Court concerned" The remaining conditions
imposed in the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Misc.
R/CR.MA/17777/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2022
Application No. 2345 of 2022 shall remain the same.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
K. S. DARJI
