State Of Gujarat vs Indrajit Hirendranath Mitra
2024 Latest Caselaw 128 Guj

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Indrajit Hirendranath Mitra on 5 January, 2024

                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/CR.MA/21305/2018                             ORDER DATED: 05/01/2024

                                                                                  undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
                        21305 of 2018

==========================================================
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
                                      Versus
                          INDRAJIT HIRENDRANATH MITRA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HK PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                Date : 05/01/2024

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 20.9.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari in Criminal Misc. Application No.876 of 2018, whereby the learned Session Judge has granted bail to the respondent - original accused.

2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State.

3. In Bhagwan Singh v Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak reported in 2023 INSC 7613, the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering judgment in case of Dolat Ram v State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349; Kashmira Singh v Duman Singh, (1996) 4 SCC 693 and X v State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511, held as follows:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/21305/2018 ORDER DATED: 05/01/2024

undefined

'13. It is also required to be borne in mind that when a prayer is made for the cancellation of grant of bail cogent and overwhelming circumstances must be present and bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial. This proposition draws support from the Judgment of this Court in Daulat Ram and others v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693 and xxx v. State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC

511.'

4. Learned APP though strongly argued to cancel the bail on submission that the learned Sessions Court while granting bail did not consider the factors to be considered for granting or rejecting the bail, has failed to submit any supervening circumstances being rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial. Learned APP also argued that on untenable ground, the learned sessions judge has granted bail to the respondent accused. The accused was a Manager of the concerned bank and it was his duty to verify the documents, said to have been forged, produced by other two accused, but he failed in his duty and as such, the respondent accused was in hand in glow with the other accused and has committed offence of siphoning away the money. This aspect has been totally misread by the learned, sessions judge and granted anticipatory bail on irrelevant consideration. This submission has made to allow this petition.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar appearing for the respondent accused would submit that considering the FIR, the role played by the petitioner is much

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/21305/2018 ORDER DATED: 05/01/2024

undefined

lesser than the role played by the two other accused in siphoning away the money and they have been granted regular bail by the concerned court. He would further submit that the prosecution has not preferred any application for cancellation of main accused and has adopted pick and choose formula and to pressurize the present respondent accused, the petitioner has filed the petition. He would further submit that though the learned sessions judge has granted anticipatory bail, the investigating officer has not accepted the bail bond of the respondent and no charge sheet is filed against the respondent. He would further submit that there is no supervening circumstances, which can said to be erode in trial. Thus, he submits to dismiss this petition.

6. In para 5 and 6 of the impugned order, the learned sessions judge has given finding while granting anticipatory bail to the respondent accused. The translated version of para 5 & 6 reads as under:-

"5) In view of submission of both parties, affidavit of the Investigating Officer and investigation papers, it appears that accused no. 1 Ankit Shirishbhai Mehta and accused no. 2 Bhaveshri Arvindbhai Davda took complainant Vimalkumar Natwarlal Patel into confidence for the tourism development of the Dandi Beach and obtained certificate of Gram Panchayat from him stating that aforesaid certificate is required for the use of C.S.R. fund, which is a formality, and there is no other use of it. Therefore, in view of facts of aforesaid complaint, accused no.

1 and 2 have obtained a certificate of Gram Panchayat from the complainant and hence, it cannot be said that aforesaid certificate is fake. It cannot be said that applicant/accused forged aforesaid document. It transpires from the record that applicant/ accused has not taken any action to obtain aforesaid document or has not accompanied other co-accused.

6) Further, applicant/accused was summoned in connection with

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/21305/2018 ORDER DATED: 05/01/2024

undefined

the offence registered vide I C.R. No. 7/2018 at Ahwa Police Station. The present applicant/accused came to know that accused no. 1 has not used loan amount for the purpose for which he obtained the loan. Therefore, as applicant/accused informed his Head Office in this regard, Head Office gave authorization letter to the present applicant/accused on 03/08/2018 to lodge complaint against accused Ankit Shirishbhai Mehta (Account No. 1566300005593, Loan Account No. 1566300005883) and Mrs. Bhaveshri Arvindbhai Davda (Account No. 1566300005630). The same is produced vide mark 3/4. The present applicant/accused gave a written complaint at Navsari Town Police Station on 03/08/2018, and the said complaint was also received in the police station. The same is produced vide mark 3/5. Whereas complainant lodged complaint in respect of aforesaid offence on 04/08/2018. Therefore, as per the complaint, present applicant/accused has not obtained a certificate of Gram Panchayat from the complainant. Therefore, the role of the present applicant/accused in obtaining the certificate from the Gram Panchayat is not found. Further, applicant/accused is a Bank Manager, who is not likely to flee. He appears to be co-operative in the investigation. The aforesaid case is based on the documentary evidence, and as said documentary evidences have been produced, there is no possibility of tampering with such documents. Under these circumstances, in view of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court in the cases of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Asim Niranjan Chakravarti vs. State of Gujarat produced on behalf of applicant/accused, as the case is fit for use of discretion in favour of the applicant/accused."

7. The finding and reasoning given by the learned sessions court is totally in consonance with the settled principles of law, and there is no perversity in the order. Thus, it is incorrect to say that the learned sessions judge has exercise jurisdiction not available with him or on untenable grounds. For cancellation of bail, some supervening circumstances are required and it cannot ordinarily be cancelled as it is dealing with the personal liberty of a person.

8. Thus, this Court finds no circumstances to adjudge the impugned order as unjust and contrary to the settled principles

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/21305/2018 ORDER DATED: 05/01/2024

undefined

of law. As held earlier, the petitioner has failed to point out supervening circumstances, which may interfere with the fair trial.

9. Before parting with the order, I may also refer the observations made in the recent decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kekhriesatuo Tep and others Vs.National Investigating Agency reported in (2023) 6 SCC 58. The relevant observation made in para 20 reads as under:-

"20. An interference by an Appellate Court and particularly in a matter when liberty granted to a citizen was being taken away would be warranted only in the event the view taken by the Trial Court was either perverse or impossible. On this limited ground, we find that the appeals deserve to be allowed."

10. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed. Notice discharged.

11. Since the bail bond of the respondent accused is not taken/accepted, the respondent accused is directed to remain present before the investigating officer on 24.1.2024 and on that day, the investigating officer is directed to take/accept bail bond, as directed by the learned sessions judge.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE