Gujarat High Court
Narendra Dhirajlal Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 18 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10007/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 10007
of 2024
==========================================================
NARENDRA DHIRAJLAL GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE WITH
MR. AKASH R PATEL(6715) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 18/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for 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 enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail in
connection with the FIR be i ng C. R. No .
11191008240383 of 2024 registered wit h
Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad.
3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned
APP for the respondent - State.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that
the applicant is apprehending arrest in connection the aforesaid
FIR and in this connection the earlier application filed by the
applicant before the learned Sessions Court came to be dis-
allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10007/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of
anticipatory bail, inter alia, contending that the present
applicant had agreed to sell two flats in the scheme in
question to the first informant and the entire amount of
consideration had been paid by the first informant to the
present applicant, however, despite the same, the applicant
did not execute any sale-deed in favour of the first informant
and had subsequently sold one of the flats in favour of third
party in the Year 2018. Thus, the present applicant has
played an active role in commission of offence in question. She
further submits that the investigation is at very initial stage.
She, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the original complainant
has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that
the present applicant had paid the amount of Rs.36,80,000/- in
the account of present applicant and pursuant to the same, two
flats had been allotted in favour of the first informant in the Year
2012. However, since thereafter, no sale-deed was executed by
the present applicant in favour of the first informant. Several
communications had taken place between the parties for the
same and despite the same, the present applicant had sold one of
the flats to the third party in the Year - 2018. Thus, there is an
active participation on the part of present applicant in
commission of offence in question. He, therefore, submitted to
dismiss the present application.
7. Learned advocate Mr.Nisarg Trivedi is permitted to file
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10007/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
his appearance as well as affidavit on behalf of first informant
before the Registry of this Court.
8. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the
material available on record. As per the case of prosecution, the
present applicant had agreed to sell 2 flats in the scheme in
question to the first informant and allegedly had accepted the
amount of Rs.36,80,000/- from the first informant for the said
purpose. However, the applicant had not executed any sale-deed
for the same in favour of the first informant and in the Year 2018
had sold one of flats to the third party. This Court has considered
the nature of the dispute so also, the fact that the first informant
had not initiated any civil action for the dispute in question.
9. This Court has considered following aspects,
(a) as per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme
Court there are mainly two factors which are required to be
considered by this court;
(i) prima facie case
(ii) requirement of accused for custodial interrogation.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, this court is inclined to consider the case of the
applicant.
10. This Court has also taken into consideration the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,
reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the
case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10007/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565. Further, this Court has
also taken into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of
Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. in
Special Leave Petition No. 7281-7282/2017 dated
29.01.2020.
10.1 This court has also considered the judgment in the
case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8
SCC 273, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observe that
whenever there is punishment of 7 years, then the court would
be liberal to exercise the discretion. Further, by exercising the
discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the doors of remand by the
Investigating Officer is open and therefore also this court is
inclined to exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
11. In the result, the present application is allowed. The
applicant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the
event of arrest in connection with a F I R be i ng No . C. R. No .
11191008240383 of 2024 registered wit h
Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad on executing a
personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with
one surety of like amount on the following conditions;
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on
2 5 . 0 6 . 2 0 2 4 between 12.00 Noon and 2.00 p.m.;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10007/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
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 concerned
trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before
the concerned trial court within a week; and
12. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be
influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in
the present order.
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
GIRISH
