Jay Deepakbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 2935 Guj

   R/CR.MA/21421/2022                            ORDER DATED: 13/04/2023




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 21421 of 2022

==========================================================
                        JAY DEEPAKBHAI PARMAR
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAYUR RAJGURU(1198) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. VRUNDA SHAH,ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                            Date : 13/04/2023

                             ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C. R. No. 11191022220961 of 2022 registered with Isanpur Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The applicant happens to be son of one Dipakbhai Parmar who came into the contact with the complainant and after winning the trust of the complainant, promised him to provide groceries for his grocery store at a concessional rate. Initially, against the payment, the present applicant as well as father of the applicant i.e. Dipakbhai Parmar provided the groceries and thereafter, they won the confidence of the complainant and

R/CR.MA/21421/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2023

said that now the prices of groundnut oil and other groceries are likely to increase and they will supply the same at a cheaper rate by Rs. 400/- per tin of groundnut oil than market price and therefore, the complainant on various dates paid the total amount of Rs. 42,63,115-/ advance to the father of the present applicant Dipakbhai and thereafter, Dipakbhai switched off the mobile phone and neither provided the goods in form of groceries nor repaid the amount. Therefore, the complaint was registered against the present applicant.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Mayur Rajguru appearing for the applicant submitted that age of the applicant is only 22 years and he is serving as a Security Guard. The offence is committed by his father and not by him. He further submitted that there is a delay of nine months in registering the complaint and therefore, considering those grounds, he should be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Rajguru appearing for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dipilsingh V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 779 and by relying upon the paragraph no. 4 of the aforesaid judgment, he submitted that the Criminal Court will exercise the jurisdiction to grant bail or anticipatory bail is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too without any

R/CR.MA/21421/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2023

trial.

5. By making the aforesaid submission, learned advocate for the applicant has prayed for enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Toliya appearing for the complainant from the affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant pointed out that the present applicant has actively participated in the offence in question. He drew the attention of this Court to various transactions whereby through Google Pay certain amounts were paid to the present applicant by complainant. Learned advocate Mr. Toliya further submitted that the payments were made either via bank transfers or through one Kailash Raval and one Chetan Kumawat to whom the money was paid by the complainant and thereafter, money was through them paid to the present applicant and his father. By placing on record the demand notice and various screenshots of transactions taken place between the present applicant and the complainant and between the complainant and Kailash Raval and Chetan Kumawat, he submitted that as the amount is paid to the present applicant, despite that after accepting the payment from the complainant he neither supplied goods of the complainant nor repaid the amount.

7. However, the aforesaid facts has been disputed by learned advocate Mr. Rajguru by stating that whatever the amount

R/CR.MA/21421/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2023

which has been paid either to the present applicant or to Kailash Raval or Chetan Kumavat, the goods have been supplied and that fact has not been disputed by the present complainant.

8. Learned APP Ms. Vrunda Shah appearing for the respondent - State submitted that the modus operandi adopted by the present applicant and his father was that they opened a grocery shop namely M. D. Enterprise and provided the bills of Mayur Enterprise, Gokul and Manju Shri and Jaybhavani Kirana Stores and initially, goods were supplied on loading rickshaw. However, thereafter, on the ground of increasing groundnut oil price and for providing the groundnut oil at cheaper rate, they cheated the complainant to tune of Rs. 42,63,150/- and thereafter, neither supplied the goods nor repaid the amount and switched off the mobile which would indicate that the intention of the applicant right from the beginning was to cheat to the complainant.

9. By making the aforesaid submission, learned APP also prayed for dismissal of this application.

10. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the record.

11. The record indicates that there were some financial transactions entered into between the present applicant and the

R/CR.MA/21421/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2023

complainant and also between the father of the present applicant and the complainant. As there are material on record produced by the original complainant indicating that some transaction has taken place between the present applicant and the complainant as well and considering the fact that earlier some goods were supplied to the complainant and thereafter, an amount of Rs. 42,63,150/- were though collected from the complainant neither the goods supplied nor the amount was repaid and as the role of the present applicant and his father are not distinguishable but are interconnected with each-other, I do not see any reason to grant the anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Further though the judgment relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Rajguru, at the no point of time, this Court ever suggested the applicant to deposit or to pay any amount to the complainant and therefore, the reliance placed upon the aforesaid judgment in case of Dilipsingh is misplaced and the same would not be applicable in the facts of the present case.

12. In view of above discussions, the same is dismissed and accordingly, dismissed.

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) VARSHA DESAI