Gujarat High Court
Krunal Diliprav Nikam vs State Of Gujarat on 20 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6809/2024 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 6809 of 2024
(FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET)
=======================================================
KRUNAL DILIPRAV NIKAM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR DHRUVIN P BHUPTANI(8295) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIRAJ P THAKKAR(9333) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 20/06/2024
CAV ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule
for respondent - State of Gujarat.
2. The present application is filed under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for
regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.
No.11196003230675/2023 registered with the
Manjalpur Police Station, Vadodara City for the
offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that
the so-called incident has taken place for the
period between 01.08.2019 to 20.08.2023, for
which, the FIR has been lodged on 20.08.2023 and
the applicant has been arrested in connection with
the same on 20.08.2023 and since then, he is in
judicial custody. Learned advocate submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6809/2024 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
now the investigation is completed and after
submission of the chargesheet, the present
application is preferred. Learned advocate
submitted that FIR is lodged against three accused
persons and the applicant is shown as accused no.1
and rest of the accused have already been
considered by this Court. Learned advocate
submitted that the applicant is the owner of Laksh
Management Consultancy and was having office at
Baroda and on the strength of the advertisement
published by the applicant for the purpose of
getting work permit and student visa of Canada,
number of persons have approached him and at that
time, the applicant had given assurance that on
clearance of the oral interview, LMIA Certificate
would be issued for a period of three months and
they would get work permit for the purpose of said
work and for the same, the applicant has charged
Rs.3,00,000/- from per person and the applicant
has also entered into an agreement with those
candidates to the effect that if the work as
assured by him would not be done, in that event,
he would repay the amount to the person concerned.
Learned advocate submitted that in fact, the
applicant was indulged into such business since
long and number of persons have received work
permit/ visa of different countries from the
office of the applicant but as the complainant and
other witnesses could not be able to clear the
interview, visa process was not process further
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6809/2024 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
for those candidates. Learned advocate submitted
that it is alleged that the present applicant has
not repaid the amount back to them as their work
has not been done, therefore, FIR has been lodged
against the applicant. Learned advocate has
produced chart mentioning the details of the
candidates, who have been repaid the amount.
Learned advocate submitted that in fact, entire
incident had taken place during Covid_19 and at
that point of time, some candidates have cleared
interview and some of them could not be cleared it
due to criteria fixed by the concerned country at
the relevant point of time and the candidates, who
have helped the applicants during those days, have
been repaid and, hence, the liability cannot be
fatened upon the applicant because of not clearing
the interview by the concerned candidates. Learned
advocate submitted that entire case of the
prosecution hinges upon documentary evidence and
all those documents have been collected by the IO
during the course of investigation. Learned
advocate submitted that all the offences are
exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate and
if at the end of day, the charges leveled against
the applicant are proved, in that event, maximum
punishment, which can be imposed, is less than 7
years. Learned advocate submitted that against the
applicant, total 4 different FIRs have been
registered by four independent persons but out of
them, the applicant is bailed out in one case,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6809/2024 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
whereas proceedings are going on in connection of
two offences and same are at the fag end of trial.
Learned advocate submitted that here in this case,
more than 300 witnesses have been cited in the
papers of the chargesheet, therefore, it would
take considerable time to conclude the trial.
Learned advocate has put reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Lalit Chaturvedi & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171, more
particularly, Paragraph No.9 of the said judgment
and submitted that considering the ratio
enunciated in the said decision, the applicant may
be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable
conditions.
4. Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed
grant of regular bail looking to the nature and
gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the
role of the present applicant is clearly spelt out
from the papers of the chargesheet. Learned APP
submitted that during the course of investigation,
the IO has recorded the statements of more than
315 persons and it is found out from the
statements of those persons that the applicant has
collected/ pocketed more than 3,57,83,500/- from
all the witnesses on the assurance that on
clearance of the interview, LMIA Certificate would
be issued for a period of three months and they
would get work permit for the purpose of said work
and for the same, the applicant has already
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6809/2024 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
entered into agreements with those candidates
specifically mentioning that if they would not get
work permit, in that event, he will repay the
amount but not a single penny has been repaid by
him to the complainant and other witnesses and not
only that, at the time of execution of the
agreements, the present applicant handed over
cheque to those witnesses, which were deposited
but could not be honoured and, hence, those
witnesses have instituted complaints under Section
138 of the NI Act, which are more than 31
complaints registered against the present
applicant. Learned APP submitted that the
applicant has pocketed huge amount from the
gullible persons and direct involvement of the
applicant is found out from the investigation
papers. It is, therefore, urged that considering
the above factual aspects, this application may
not be entertained.
5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on
behalf of the respective parties and perused the
papers of the investigation and considered the
allegations levelled against the applicant and the
role played by the applicant. It is found out from
the record that the present application is
preferred after submission of the chargesheet and
now the investigation is completed and the
applicant is in jail since 20.08.2023. All the
offences are exclusively triable by the Court of
Magistrate and entire case of the prosecution
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6809/2024 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
hinges upon documentary evidence, which have been
collected by the IO during the course of
investigation. It is also found out that the
applicant has repaid the amount to most of the
candidates as agreed between them. In the papers
of the chargesheet, more than 300 witnesses have
been cited and, hence, it would take considerable
time to conclude the trial. I have considered the
role attributed to the present applicant at the
time of commission of crime and the co-accused,
who have been considered by this Court. Therefore
considering the above factual aspects and on the
ground of parity, the present application deserves
to be allowed.
6. This Court has also taken into consideration the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40 as well
as in case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central
Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022)
10 SCC 51.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of the allegations made
against the applicant in the FIR, without
discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie,
this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit
case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the
applicant on regular bail.
8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The
applicant is ordered to be released on regular
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6809/2024 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.
No.11196003230675/2023 registered with the
Manjalpur Police Station, Vadodara City on
executing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with two surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and
subject to the conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse
liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest
of the prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the concerned
court within a week;
[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior
permission of the concerned court;
[e] mark presence before the concerned Police
Station on alternate Monday of every English
calendar month for a period of six months
between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;
[f] furnish the present address of residence to
the Investigating Officer and also to the
Court at the time of execution of the bond
and shall not change the residence without
prior permission of this Court;
9. The authorities will release the applicant only if
he is not required in connection with any other
offence for the time being. If breach of any of
the above conditions is committed, the concerned
Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue
warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6809/2024 CAV ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court
having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be
open for the concerned Court to delete, modify
and/or relax any of the above conditions, in
accordance with law.
10. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be
influenced by the observations of preliminary
nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this
Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
