SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, J.
Alpeshbhai Govindbhai Suhagiya - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 5223 of 2021
Decided on : 12-01-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Dakshesh Mehta and Rushang D. Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Manan Mehta, APP.

Headnote:

Gujarat Protection of Interest and Depositor (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2003 - Section 3 - Price Chits Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 - Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 - Indian Penal Code - Sections, 406, 420, 114 and 120(B) - Prayed for Anticipatory Bail - Applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in alleged offence - He has no past antecedent of like nature and custodial interrogation of applicant is not essential for purpose of investigation – Held, Complainant made investment of Rs. 5,00,000/- with company of the main accused, neither any amount or commission was been received by the applicant nor he had been benefited by accused - Present case based on documentary evidence and the applicant has throughout cooperated with investigation. Further, applicant has no any past antecedent of like nature - There is no possibility of his fleeing from justice and there is nothing to be tempered with the evidence - I find no reason to decline pre-arrest bail to applicant - Application is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Ilesh J. Vora, J.

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I-01 of 2021 registered with CID Crime Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for the offences under the provisions of Sections, 406, 420, 114 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Price Chits Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest and Depositor (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2003.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has no past antecedent of like nature and custodial interrogation of the applicant is not essential for the purpose of investigation.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail stating inter alia that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature and custodial interrogation is necessary for further investigation of the case.

4. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record, it appears that the complainant made investment of Rs. 5,00,000/- with the company of the main accused Tribhovanbhai Patel. Therefore, neither any amount or commission was been received by the applicant nor he had been benefited by accused Tribhovanbhai Patel. Present case based on documentary evidence and the applicant has throughout cooperated with the investigation. Further, the applicant has no any past antecedent of like nature. There is no possibility of his fleeing from justice and there is nothing to be tempered with the evidence.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the role attributed to the present applicant in the alleged offence, I find no reason to decline pre-arrest bail to the applicant. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a FIR being C.R. No. I-01 of 2021 registered with CID Crime Police Station, District: Ahmedabad on his executing a personal 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 himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 21.01.2022 between 11.00 a.m. 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 their residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Trial Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and

(g) it would be open to the Investigating officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits;

6. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top