Gujarat High Court
Pritesh Bharatbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 21 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1831/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE ANTICIPATORY
BAIL) NO. 1831 of 2025
==========================================================
PRITESH BHARATBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR N P PANDYA, ADVOCATE FOR
MR JIMIT P SHAH(9917) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MEET THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 21/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of
the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, the applicant-
accused has prayed for enlarging the applicant on anticipatory
bail in connection with the FIR be i ng C. R.
No . 1 1 2 0 6 0 4 3 2 4 0 4 4 5 o f 2 0 2 4 registered wit h Mehsana
Taluka Police Station, Mehsana for the offences punishable
under Sections 170, 406, 419, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that
earlier, the applicant herein had preferred Criminal Misc.
Application No.14599 of 2024, which was disposed of by this
Court vide order dated 07.10.2024 and the applicant herein was
directed to remain present before the Investigating Officer
pursuant to the notice issued to him under Section 41A of the
Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the applicant herein had
remained present before the Investigating Officer on 09.10.2024,
and thereafter, also, on several occasions, the applicant herein
has remained present before the Investigating Officer as and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1831/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
when he was asked to do so.
2.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that
thereafter, a notice came to be issued to the present applicant
by the Investigating Officer indicating that he was desirous of
arresting the present applicant and that is how the present
application has been preferred by the applicant.
2.2 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that in
the notice, it has been stated by the Investigating Officer that
the applicant herein was intended to be subjected to Layered
Voice Analysis (LVA) Test for which the applicant had not
consented. In this regard, he has submitted that if the applicant
had not consented for the conduct of the said test, the
Investigating Agency had a remedy available under the law,
which could have been taken recourse to. However, if this Court
thinks fit that the applicant should undergo such test, the
applicant is ready and willing to subject himself to any such
test.
2.3 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
person whose money is involved in present offence has not come
forward to lodge any complaint and the person, who has lodged
the FIR is having no right or interest over the money involved in
the offence. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present
application and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to
suitable conditions.
3. Learned APP has opposed the present application, inter
alia, contending that the applicant is actively involved in
commission of the offence in question, and therefore, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1831/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
custodial interrogation of the applicant would be necessary for
taking the investigation to its logical conclusion. He, therefore,
has submitted to dismiss the present application.
4. Learned advocate for the original complainant has also
opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that this
is a successive bail application, which is not maintainable as
per the law laid-down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment
in case of G.R.Ananda Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. He,
therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.
5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
material available on record. From the record, it appears that
the notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure
had been issued by the Investigating Officer to the present
applicant on 26.09.2023 and despite the service of the said
notice, the applicant herein had chosen not to appear before the
Investigating Officer pursuant to the said notice. It was only
after the order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc.
Application No.14599 of 2024 on 07.10.2024 that the applicant
had remained present before the Investigating Officer.
6. So far as the aspect of merits is concerned, from the
record, it appears that one Dilipbhai Patel, who was the relative
of the first informant had settled in U.S.A. He had sent the
amount of Rs.5,50,00,000/- to one Rajubhai Patel for purchase
of a property in India. Out of the said amount of
Rs.5,50,00,000/-, the amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was lying in
the locker of the present applicant. Thereafter, the other amount
of Rs.1,22,00,000/- had been transferred to the locker of the
present applicant. Thus, total amount of Rs.3,22,50,000/- was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1831/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
lying in the locker of the present applicant out of the aforesaid
amount of Rs.5,50,00,000/-. As per the case of prosecution, one
person had approached the first informant and had informed
him that he was required to report to State Monitoring Cell and
meet the Officer In-charge of the said Cell with regard to the
aforesaid money, and therefore, the first informant was advised
that the money, which was lying in the locker of the present
applicant should be parked at some safe place, and therefore,
the amount of Rs.3,22,00,000/- was handed over to the other
co-accused viz. Bhamini in cash for being parked at a safe place
and while she was in transit with the said money a scene was
created that she was looted of the said money. In fact, right from
the message received by the first informant asking him to
remain present before the State Monitoring Cell, till the incident
of loot money, everything was stage managed and the applicant
herein also appears to have actively involved himself in hatching
a conspiracy for commission of the present offence. Having
regard to the peculiar facts of the case, it appears that the
custodial interrogation of the present applicant is necessary for
thorough investigation of the offence in question. Having regard
to these aspects, no case is made out to release the present
applicant on bail. Hence, the present application stands
dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
GIRISH
