The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in granting bail to the applicant-accused in connection with the FIR registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 409, 120B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I-11210060212461 of 2021 registered with Varachha Police Station, District Surat for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 409, 120B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, as well as trial also and will not flee from justice.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of investigating agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submits that upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted bail.

3.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that pursuant to the order dated 26.10.2021, the applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- before the Trial Court.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

5. Having heard 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 offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

6. This Court has considered following aspects:

(i) The F.I.R. is registered on 18.07.2021 for the offence, which is alleged to have been taken place between 20.04.2021 to 28.04.2021.

(ii) Prima-facie, though the office is registered under Sections 406, 420, 409, 120B of the Indian Penal code, there is no allegation in the FIR, that any representation is made by the applicant to the complainant for receiving the money by luring him that it will be doubled within a period of one month.

(iii) Prima-facie, it appears that nothing is coming on record to indicate that the applicant has to do anything with the creation of “P. Pravinkumar and Company” fake firm in the name of “P. Pravinkumar and Company” and the allegations prima facie are made against the co-accused, who have represented before the complainant in this regard.

(iv) No other antecedents are pointed out against the applicant.

(v) From the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, it appears that two persons; Nitin Limbachiya and Sanjay Parmar, have allegedly made a representation to lure the complainant.

(vi) Learned advocate for the applicant, under instructions, submitted that without prejudice, the applicant has already deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only), as directed by this Court.

(vii) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, under the instructions, of the Investigating Officer, is unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant.

(ix) The co-accused have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14908 of 2021 and orders dated 14.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 14202 of 2021, Criminal Misc. Application No. 14198 of 2021 and order dated 21.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 896 of 2022.

7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 831 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 31