Gujarat High Court
Vijay Sitaram Agrawal vs State Of Gujarat on 20 November, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20106/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 20106
of 2024
==========================================================
VIJAY SITARAM AGRAWAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHDDANISH M BAREJIA(10612) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 20/11/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant-accused has prayed for
enlarging the Applicant on anticipatory bail in connection with the F I R
be i ng C. R. No . 11210055240751 of 2024 registered wit h
Salabatpua Police Station, Surat for the offe nce s puni sha bl e unde r
S ec tions 409, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the
Respondent - State.
2.1 Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the
Respondent State.
3. 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. He submitted that considering the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20106/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
facts stated in the Application, the applicant may be granted anticipatory
bail.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the
nature and gravity of the offence. He submitted that the applicant knowing
fully well that the goods which he was purchasing had been procured by the
other co-accused in a clandestine manner, had agreed to purchase the said
goods at a lower cost. Thus there is an active participation on part of the
present applicant in commission of the offence in question. Learned APP has
therefore prayed that the present Application may be dismissed.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. As
per the case of the prosecution, the other co-accused namely Pannalal had
purchased goods worth Rs.53,80,293/- from the first informant and other
victims. The present applicant in turn thereafter had purchased those goods from
the said Pannalal at a lower cost. The said co-accused Pannalal had been
considered for grant of bail by this court. Considering the same, the present
Application deserves to be allowed.
6. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned advocates
for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into
consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and
the role attributed to the accused, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
applicant.
7. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20106/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
(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.
8. 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 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.
8.1 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 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS), the doors of remand by the Investigating Officer is open and therefore
also this court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
9. 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 C. R. No . 1 1 2 1 0 0 5 5 2 4 0 7 5 1 o f 2 0 2 4 registered
wit h Salabatpua Police Station, Surat for the offe nce s puni sha bl e unde r
S ec tions 409, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code on executing a personal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20106/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
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 7 . 1 1 . 2 0 2 4
between 12.00 Noon and 2.00 p.m.;
(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 concerned trial court
and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court
within a week;
10. At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
Manshi
