Pankaj Laxmidas Gajara (Bhanushali) vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 8664 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Pankaj Laxmidas Gajara (Bhanushali) vs State Of Gujarat on 13 September, 2024

                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.MA/13804/2024                                 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2024

                                                                                                            undefined




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO.
                                            13804 of 2024
                      ==========================================================
                                        PANKAJ LAXMIDAS GAJARA (BHANUSHALI)
                                                       Versus
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR DEVANSH KAKKAD FOR MR LAXMANSINH M ZALA(5787) for the
                      Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR HK PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                          Date : 13/09/2024
                                                            ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.11205032231414 of 2023 registered with Mundra Police Station, Kachchh.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that name of the present petitioner has been disclosed from the statement of witness. He would further submit that the petitioner is not named in the FIR alleging that he has played any role in evasion of GST and sales tax duty. He would submit that as per the affidavit before the learned Trial Court, role of present petitioner is limited to helping other accused to prepare forged e-way bills etc. He would further submit that the petitioner has cooperated the investigation which could be seen from page 27 and he is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation. He has referred to and rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13804/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2024

undefined

case where one of the co-accused who is Director of the company namely Surekha Sanjay Seth has been enlarged on anticipatory bail in Criminal Appeal No.3799 of 2024. Claiming parity, he would submit that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the petitioner, the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State taking this Court through the affidavit filed by the learned Trial Court submits that present petitioner has played active role in forging e-way bills and has submitted that petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

4. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers.

5. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13804/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2024

undefined

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 director of the company who is the main accused has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.3799 of 2024. Role of the petitioner is less than the role played by Surekha Seth. The name of the petitioner is not reflected in the FIR but his name is disclosed during investigation from the statement of witness. Other accused are enlarged on regular bail after filing of charge- sheet which indicates that investigating is completed.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.

7. This Court while exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner has taken into consideration law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 665. This

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13804/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2024

undefined

Court has also taken into consideration law laid down in the case of Sushila Agarwal v/s. State (NCT of Delhi [(2020) 5 SCC 1].

8. In the result, the present petition is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered as C.R.No.11205032231414 of 2023 registered with Mundra Police Station, Kachchh, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that the petitioner :

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 19.09.2024, 20.09.2024 and 21.09.2024 between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 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;

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13804/2024 ORDER DATED: 13/09/2024

undefined

9. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed by the petitioner, the concerned learned Judge will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the petitioner on bail.

Direct service is permitted.

(J. C. DOSHI, J) GAURAV J THAKER