Gujarat High Court

Central Bureau Of Investigation ... vs Meena Manmohan Singh on 26 June, 2023

Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak

     R/CR.MA/14060/2019                           JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2023




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14060 of 2019


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

================================================================

1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
       to see the judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
       of the judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question
       of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
       of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THRO HEMANSHU POPATBHAI
                          SHAH
                          Versus
                MEENA MANMOHAN SINGH
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK A DAVE(3764) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS MD MEHTA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
          PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 26/06/2023

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This application is preferred under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant - CBI for cancellation

R/CR.MA/14060/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2023

of bail granted to the original accused by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 23926 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 409, 420, 477-A etc of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard Mr. Mr.R. C. Kodekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the applicant - CBI, Mr.Hardik Dave, learned advocate for the respondent - accused and Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned APP for the respondent - State of Gujarat.

3. Mr.Kodekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the applicant - CBI has submitted that the respondent - accused has committed the breach of condition no.8(d), which reads thus:-

(d) not leave the limits of Baroda for the period of six months without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

3.1 Mr.Kodekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor has, while referring page nos.37 and 39 of the compilation submitted that though this Court while granting bail imposed condition that he shall not leave the limits of Baroda for the period of six months without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned, however, on furnishing bail bond, the accused has given the permanent address of Rajasthan and present address of Lunawada at Mahisagar, which are the outside of the Baroda

R/CR.MA/14060/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2023

district. He has submitted that thereafter, the applicant moved an application for cancellation of bail for the breach of condition before the CBI Court and the accused also moved an application for modification and the CBI, Court has rejected the application filed by the present applicant - CBI and partly allowed the application filed by the accused. He has submitted that the applicant filed purshis (page no.99) and produced the rent agreement giving the address of Baroda. He has submitted that the applicant has committed the breach of condition imposed by this Court while releasing him on bail and, therefore, this application may be allowed and the bail may be cancelled. It also appears that the applicant has moved an application for modification of condition which came to be allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vie order dated 12.07.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.23926 of 2018.

4. As against that the learned advocate Mr. Dave for the respondent has submitted that the Court has rightly exercised the power under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code while granting bail to the present respondent and after releasing him on bail there was no untoward or overwhelming circumstance reported against the present accused. Further he has submitted that the investigation is over and the accused has fully cooperated with the investigating officer and there was no breach of any conditions reported against the accused. In view of the aforesaid facts, he urges before the Court that present

R/CR.MA/14060/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2023

application may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed.

5. I have perused the FIR and the impugned order passed by the Court in the application for regular bail. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing on behalf of both the sides and the averments made in the application. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the applicant, while executing the bail bond, has specifically mentioned the address to the effect that he is resident of Lunawada, District: Mahisagar and also mentioned the permanent address of Rajasthan. It appears from the record that the applicant has not committed any breach of conditions which were imposed by the Court while releasing him on bail.

6. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of (1) Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, (2) Shree Vikas Co. Op Bank Ltd, (Liq) Through Sunil Laxmanrao Powle Vs. State of Gujarat dated 6.5.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3712 of 2018, (3) Hiteshkumar Vallabhdas Shah Power of Attorney of Pankaj Indravadan Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2021 GLR 4 2874, (4) Merubhai Ramabhai Kodiyatar (Hun) Rabari Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2021 GLR 2 1175, (5) Arvind Ravji Baradia (Ahir) vs. State of Gujarat dated 21.4.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.8165 of 2016, (6) State of Gujarat vs. Ravi Mepa Chavda dated 1.4.2016 passed

R/CR.MA/14060/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2023

in Criminal Misc. Application No.9782 of 2015 and Asha Dharamnarayan Sharma Vs. State of Gujarat dated 12.2.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.20335 of 2015, this Court is of the view that so far as the factum of considering the application filed under section 439 (2) of Code for cancellation of bail and granting of bail are concerned, both factors are quite different. Normally in usual circumstance, the Court cannot interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court except in the case of any overwhelming circumstance or any breach of condition or any other special circumstance shown by the applicant.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws, I am of the opinion that in the present case, when the respondent original accused has been released on bail and has not committed any breach of conditions imposed by the Court and when there is no overwhelming circumstances reported against the accused, there is no reason to exercise power under Section 439(2) of the Code and cancel the bail granted in favour of the respondent - original accused.

8. With aforesaid clarifications and observations, present application deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL