Gujarat High Court
Suresh Labhshankar Shilu vs State Of Gujarat on 27 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2388/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 2388
of 2025
==========================================================
SURESH LABHSHANKAR SHILU
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SHRIRAM K BHARGAW(9436) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
[2.0] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release
him/her on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with the
FIR being C.R. No.I-11211009240992 of 2024 registered with Chotila Police
Station, Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 308 and
62 of BNS and Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
[3.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant
is falsely implicated in the offence. Based on mere presumption, he has
been arraigned as an accused. No offence under Sections 465, 467, 468, and
471 IPC is made out. Only with a view to circumvent the rigors of Section 35
of the BNSS, the aforesaid sections have been invoked. The offence is
punishable up to 7 years, and as it is allegations are accepted, whatever
allegations are levelled against the present applicant. Besides, the applicant
is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2388/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
[4.0] Learned APP as well as learned advocate for the respondent No.2
have opposed the present application on the ground that the present
applicant was not a partner of the Miracles Ceramic. Though he was retired
on 14th June, 2024 and he has given assurance to make a partner in the
Company and he received Rs.80 lakh. In this regard, he has executed one
document and committed an offence of forgery, not only that the applicant
is convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and in total 17 offences, the
proceedings qua attachment of his property being initiated by the
Magistrate. No2 he is on run and he remained absconded. If he released on
bail, then possibility cannot be ruled out to tamper with the evidence.
Hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has
requested to dismiss the present application.
[5.0] 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) the nature
and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including
the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on
conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility
of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been
made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him
so arrested. 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 :
(1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2388/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
(2) the allegations against the present applicant is that though he retired
as a partner from the Miracles Ceramic in June, 2014 and he has
executed one deed/agreement in favour of the complainant and
received an amount of Rs.80 lakh and neither he has returned the
amount nor the complainant made a partner of the firm. In this
regard offence is registered.
In the documents, he has made false assertion. It is needless to
say that to make false assertion is not amounts to forgery and no any
forgery and forged signature being made on the part of the applicant;
(3) No offence is made out qua forgery. So far as other offences qua
cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 406 and 420 are
concerned, the complainant has filed proceeding under Section 138
of the NI Act and applicant is also convicted. It appears that with a
view to recover the said amount, the appropriate proceedings being
filed. Now applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation.
Merely, applicant is convicted under Section 138 is not a ground to
refuse the bail.
(4) No antecedent is reported against the applicant;
(5) nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused;
[6.0] Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State
of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench
in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC
665 and also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of
Delhi) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the present
application.
[6.1] This court has also considered the judgment in the case of Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, Satender Kumar
Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022)10 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2388/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
51 and Md. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 892 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.
[6.2.] Further, it would be apposite to refer the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar
and another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751.
[7.0] In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in
the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in connection with the FIR
being C.R. No.I-11211009240992 of 2024 registered with Chotila Police
Station, Surendranagar, the applicant shall be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only)
with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that applicant :
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for
interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on
04/03/2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and the IO
shall ensure that no unnecessary harassment or
inconvenience is caused to the applicant;
(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 UIDAI
Number, Contact Number/s, Passport Number (if he is
having the passport), E-mail address and present address of
his residence to the investigating officer and the court
concerned and shall not change his residence till the final
disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2388/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court
within a week;
(g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or
restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigative
agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who
seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail;
(h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the
learned trial Court for a direction under Section 483(2) to
arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such
as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion,
intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to
influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.-
[8.0] At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie
observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
[9.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is disposed
of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
KUMAR ALOK
