Gujarat High Court
Sanjaysinh Batuksinh Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 17 August, 2023
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14329/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14329 of 2023
=====================================================
SANJAYSINH BATUKSINH VAGHELA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR KISHAN R CHAKWAWALA(9846) for the Applicant(s) No.
1
MR RM CHAKWAWALA(1519) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MAHETA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 17/08/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of
rule on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. 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 bearing I-
C.R.No.11211016230265 of 2023 dated 7.7.2023
registered with Dhrangadhra Taluka Police
Station, District: Surendranagar for the offence
punishable under Section 406, 420 and 409 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kishan R. Chakwawalal
appearing for the applicant, learned APP Mr.
Manan Maheta appearing for the respondent -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14329/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2023
undefined
State and learned advocate Mr. Rohan Shah for
the original complainant, who sought permission
and was granted permission to appear on behalf
of the original complainant.
4. As per the FIR registered by the first informant
Sahdevbhai Karsanbhai Dhodu (Patel), he has
stated that he is running his business in the
name of Krishna Trading in the Dhangadhra
Marketing Yard. They purchased the agricultural
produce from the farmers and sell it to
Radheshyam Trading. The present applicant is
owner of the Radheshyam Trading. As per the FIR
from 2.6.2023 till 29.6.2023, by way of
different transactions, the first informant
supplied Til worth Rs.5,58,27,219/- and upon the
say of aforesaid Radheshyam Trading, the
aforesaid agricultural produce was supplied to
various firms. It was promised by the present
applicant that the payment of the aforesaid
agricultural produce supplied to the present
applicant would be made within a period of
fifteen days. However, out of the total
outstanding amount, the present applicant by way
of two installments of Rs.50,00,000/- and
Rs.25,00,000/- paid only Rs.75,00,000/-
through RTGS and did not pay remaining amount of
Rs.4,83,27,219/-. When the applicant demanded
the said amount from co-accused Dhawal
Dilipbhai, who is looking after the business of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14329/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2023
undefined
the said Radheshyam Trading, he promised to pay
the amount within one to two days but it was
never paid to the first informant and stopped
replying to the first informant. Ultimately,
Vice Chairman of the APMC was roped in, a
meeting also was convened and it was promised on
behalf of the Radheshyam Trading that the
payment will be made but despite that promise,
the outstanding amount of Rs.4,83,27,219/- was
not made, the FIR is registered.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Chakwawala appearing for
the applicant made following submissions :-
5.1 That the present applicant is in no way
connected with the first informant in respect of
any business transactions.
5.2 Even if it is believed that there was
business transaction between present applicant
and the first informant then also looking to the
amount involved, the nature of transaction can
be said to be commercial transaction. However,
the first informant has without taking recourse
to any civil remedy straightway filed a criminal
complaint.
5.3 Any intention of cheating is missing in
the FIR and therefore, in absence of any
averment of cheating, the present applicant
cannot be held responsible for non-payment as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14329/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2023
undefined
same would amount to civil dispute and
therefore, he is entitled to anticipatory bail.
5.4 The present applicant is a reputed
person and has no past antecedent and therefore,
as he is ready and willing to co-operate with
the investigation and hence, he may be
considered for anticipatory bail.
5.5 Learned advocate Mr. Chakwawala relied
upon following judgments :-
(i) Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. Versus The State of
West Bengal [Criminal Appeal No.463 of 2022 SC]
(ii) Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Versus Stte of
Gujarat and Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 1134 &
1135 of 2014 SC].
By relying upon the aforesaid
judgments, learned advocate Mr. Chakwawala
submitted that looking to the fact that the
first informant has put the criminal machinery
in motion which may affect the reputation of the
present applicant in society and that for no
reason for a civil dispute he will have to face
the interrogation and the investigation for
which his arrest and custodial interrogation is
not required, looking to the ratio laid down by
way of aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the present applicant may be considered
for anticipatory bail.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14329/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2023
undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr. Rohan Shah for the original
complainant and learned APP Mr. Manan Maheta for
the respondent - State vehemently opposed this
application and made following submissions :-
6.1 To refute the claim of the present
applicant that there were no business
transaction between the parties and the present
applicant is not remotely connected in respect
of any of the business transaction with the
first informant, both learned APP as well as
learned advocate Mr. Rohan Shah for the
complainant submitted that the present applicant
has transferred a sizable amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- by way of RTGS
transaction in favour of the first informant,
which prima-facie shows that there were business
transactions between the parties as alleged in
the FIR.
6.2 Both learned APP and learned advocate
Mr. Rohan Shah submitted that a sum of
Rs.75,00,000/- is not a small amount and
therefore, no person would transfer any amount
through RTGS in respect to another business firm
unless there are business transactions between
the parties. It was pointed out by learned APP
for State as well as learned advocate for the
original complainant that a sum of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14329/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2023
undefined
Rs.9,40,00,000/- were withdrawn from the present
applicant's account as cash withdrawal through
cheques between 2.6.2023 and 3.7.2023, which
shows that the present applicant has received
the amount from the various vendors to whom he
supplied the agricultural product purchased from
the first informant but did not pay the amount
to the first informant. It was also pointed out
from the police papers as well as the affidavit
of the I.O. produced before the trial Court by
both learned APP as well as learned advocate Mr.
Rohan Shah that in the month of June-2023, the
firm of the present applicant has received a sum
of more than Rs.18,00,00,000/- from SRSS Agro
Private Limited, Samakhiyani and sum of more
than Rs.4,00,00,000/- between 23.5.2023 and
6.6.2023 from Tirupati Enterprise, Hirapar,
Taluka Tankara, which would corroborate the case
of the first informant as upon the say of the
present applicant, the agricultural produces
were supplied to SRSS Agro Private Limited by
the first informant. It was submitted by both
learned advocates that the aforesaid amount
transferred by the present applicant in favour
of the first informant as well as the amount
received by the present applicant which are more
than Rs.18,00,00,000/- and out of which cash
withdrawal of more that Rs.9,40,00,000/- would
indicate that the present applicant was having
active transaction and was having constant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14329/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2023
undefined
business relation with the first informant as
alleged and therefore, considering the gravity
of the offence, as the huge amount of more than
Rs. 4,00,00,000/- is involved in the offence in
question, the offence is required to be
investigated thoroughly.
6.3 Learned advocate Mr. Rohan Shah
appearing for the complainant upon instruction
fairly submitted that as of now no civil remedy
is exhausted by the first informant but the
present applicant may not be considered for
anticipatory bail merely because till date no
civil remedy is exhausted by the first
informant. By making the aforesaid submissions,
learned APP as well as learned advocate Mr. Shah
appearing for the original complainant prayed
for dismissal of this application.
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
parties and perused the record. On perusal of
the record, I found that the amount in question
for which the FIR in respect of Section 406 and
Section 420 was registered initially and
subsequently Section 409 was added. I have also
considered the fact that a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-
in total have been transferred in the account of
first informant by the present applicant and
therefore, the same would be contrary to the
submission of learned advocate Mr. Kishan
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14329/2023 ORDER DATED: 17/08/2023
undefined
Chakwawala that the present applicant was never
having any business relation with the first
informant. Without there being any business
relations, prima-facie, it seems that there will
not be any transfer of huge sum of
Rs.75,00,000/- from the account of present
applicant to the account of first informant.
Further, as the dispute is in respect of supply
of agricultural produce (Til) and about non-
payment of the same, despite the fact that the
goods were supplied by the first informant to
the various persons as per the say of the
present applicant and thereafter, in a meeting
convened by Vice Chairman of the APMC, it was
promised to pay the outstanding dues, despite
that the amount was not paid as well as
considering the fact that the amount is more
than Rs.4,00,00,000/- and therefore,
considering the gravity of offence as well as
facts and circumstances of the present case, as
prima-facie there is active involvement of the
present applicant in the offence in question for
which a through investigation is necessary in
opinion of this Court.
8. In view of that the present application is
required to be dismissed and the same is
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
