Gujarat High Court
Jitubhai Jaswantbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 11 October, 2023
Bench: Hasmukh D. Suthar
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16432/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 16432
of 2022
==========================================================
JITUBHAI JASWANTBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PANKAJ S CHAUDHARY(3269) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 11/10/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned counsel for the applicant,
Mr.Hardik Mehta, learned APP for the respondent State and
Mr. B.B.Naik, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pankaj S.
Chaudhary, learned counsel for the original complainant.
2. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf
of the respondent-State.
3. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has
prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his
arrest in connection with the FIR being I-C.R.No. 198/2012
registered with Panigate Police Station, Vadodara, for
the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467,
471 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant submit that the applicant
has nothing to do with the alleged offence and has falsely
been implicated in the offence. It is alleged in the complaint
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16432/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2023
undefined
that one power of attorney was being forged, in which false
signature of Laxmiben Rameshwar Mali was made and
pursuant to that, said Laxmiben had filed one complaint,
which culminated into Criminal Case No.24106/2022. In the
said proceedings, the present applicant has been acquitted by
the learned JMFC, Vadodara. The case is based on
documentary evidence and even civil litigation is pending
before the competent civil Court. He submitted that the
alleged incident took place in the year 2001 and the FIR came
to be registered in the year 2012 i.e. after a delay of 11 years.
Further, during pendency of this application, the applicant was
protected and till date he has joined the investigation and
therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not
necessary. His specimen signature is also received. Nothing is
required to be recovered or discovered from the applicant.
Dispute is of civil nature and it has given a cloak of criminality.
In view of the above, the applicant may be granted
anticipatory bail.
Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions,
states that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all
the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to
powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before
the competent Court for his remand. He would further submit
that upon filing of such application by the Investigating
Agency, the right of applicant to oppose such application on
merits may be kept open.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail
contending that the applicant had preferred quashing petition
before this Court, which came to be dismissed. Then,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16432/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2023
undefined
preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, which also came to be dismissed. In view of the same,
prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. It is
alleged that the applicant has forged the signature of one
Laxmiben Mali. FSL report is also received and therefore,
custodial interrogation of the applicant is therefore imperative
to unearth the truth. Hence, this is a not a fit case to exercise
the jurisdiction in favour of the applicant. Considering the
same, present application may not be considered.
6. Mr. B.B.Naik, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pankaj
Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the original
complainant has opposed the application by contending that,
prima facie offence is made out against the applicant and
prior to exercise discretion in favour of the accused, the Court
has to consider the conduct of the applicant. He drew kind
attention of this Court towards the order passed by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application
No.6864/2007, wherein, before the Court right from 2006,
documents and affidavit have forged and tried to snatch the
order from the Court. These all documents are also required to
be recovered, which are concocted. He further submitted that
in the instant case, forgery is proved and prima facie offence
is made out against the applicant. FSL report is against the
applicant and no entry is initiated as he suppressed the
material facts and till date, he has not produced such forged
documents before the authority.
7. Mr. Naik, learned Senior Counsel has relied on the judgments
of the Apex Court in the case of (i) Jai Prakash Singh Vs.
State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379, (ii)
Mayank Pathak Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.),
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16432/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2023
undefined
reported in (2015) 11 SCC 798 and (iii) Maruti Nivrutti
Navale Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in
(2012) 9 SCC 235.
8. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and
perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent
upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously
and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down
in a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the
point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the
factors to be borne in mind while considering an application
for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable
ground to believe that the accused had committed the
offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity
of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of
the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v)
character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii)
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced;
and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant
of bail. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate
examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the
merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be
avoided. I have considered the following aspects.
(i) The case is based on documentary evidence;
(ii) Even civil litigation is pending before the competent civil
Court.
(iii) During pendency of this application, the applicant was
protected and till date he has joined the investigation and has
not misused his liberty;
(iv) In a complaint filed by Laxmiben Mali, the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16432/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2023
undefined
applicant is acquitted by the learned JMFC, Vadodara;
(v) Dispute is of civil nature and it has given a cloak of
criminality.
9. So far as anticipatory bail application is concerned, the Court
should not blindly rely upon the precedents as held by the
Apex Court as each case should be decided on its own merits
and the Court has to consider the facts of each case and in the
instant case, prima facie offence is proved against the
accused. Further, at the time of deciding bail application,
appreciation of the evidence is not permissible and it is very
premature stage to appreciate the evidence.
10. So far the decision of Jai Prakash Singh (Supra) on which
learned Senior Counsel for the complainant is relied on, is
concerned, this Court has taken into consideration the fact
that though the bail is not absolute right, but while granting
bail, the Court has to consider that the accused has not
misused liberty. Considering the same facts of the present
case as in the same set of facts as discussed in the earlier
part, the accused is acquitted in a criminal case. Considering
the same, the said judgment would not help the case of the
complainant.
11. So far the decision of Mayank Pathak (supra) is concerned, the
same would not applicable to the facts of the present case as
the facts and allegations are totally different levelled in that
case.
12. So far the decision of Maruti Nivrutti Navale (supra) is
concerned, though the applicant was protected, he has
misused his liberty. Here in the instant case, the applicant has
not misused his liberty.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16432/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2023
undefined
13. It is to be noted that while deciding the bail application, the
Court should not blindly rely upon the precedent as held by
the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs.
Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav, reported in (2004 (7)
SCC 528, as each case should be decided on its own merits
and the Court has to consider the facts of each case.
14. Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in
the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported
in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and also the decision in the case of
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
(2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present
application.
15. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing
that in the event of applicants herein being arrested in
connection with the FIR being I-C.R.No. 198/2012
registered with Panigate Police Station, Vadodara, the
applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with
one surety of like amount on the following conditions that he:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself
available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on
18.10.2023 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and
the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment or
inconvenience is caused to the applicant;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16432/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2023
undefined
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact
of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
facts to the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and
not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet
to be collected by the police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
address to the investigating officer and the court
concerned and shall not change residence till the final
disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court
and if having passport shall deposit the same before the
Trial Court within a week; and
(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an
application for remand if he considers it proper and just
and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits;
(h) shall furnish all necessary documents/evidence to the
concerned authority for the purpose of investigation
16. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating
Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police
remand of the applicant. The applicants shall remain present
before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of
such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be
directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to
treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of
entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand.
It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the
police custody, upon completion of such period of police
remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other
conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
17. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16432/2022 ORDER DATED: 11/10/2023
undefined
the applicants on bail.
18. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is
disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
