Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary remedy, granted only in exceptional cases where the accused may be falsely implicated or not likely to misuse their liberty.

JUDGMENT :

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.I-11201017240001 of 2024 registered with CID Crime Border Zone, Kachchh (West), Bhuj Police Station.

2. The facts in nutshell leading to filing of the present application are as under.

2.1 According to the case of prosecution, it is alleged that Co-accused Shailesh Bhandari and Anurag Bhandari who are the owners of Electrotherm Company opened in the name of the complainant taking the original complainant into confidence. It is alleged that in order to avoid to pay money to the complainant, the accused persons persuaded the complainant to come to Ahmedabad and when the complainant was on his way, the co-accused persons from Electrotherm Company stopped his car and forcibly abducted him at gunpoint and brought to Ahmedabad. It is alleged that the complainant was then kept confined in a farm house and threatened with dire consequences. It is further alleged that the accused forcibly took signatures of Khushiben on blank paper and blank stamp paper and allegedly took Rs.20,00,000/- in cash and gold worth Rs.10,00,000/- from the house of complainant's mother and allegedly, took the complainant's car and three dumper vehicles of Mukesh Kripalani. It is alleged that the accused threatened the complainant and called his wife and forced her to sign a blank stamp paper and a blank check and allegedly withdrew Rs.45,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- in cash. The applicant had informed accused No.1 that an amount of Rs.5,37,600/- belonging to the complainant is credit with him, which the wife of complainant Khushiben had given through two different cheques in 2015. That original complainant had demanded the amount from the applicant on 25.11.2017 and the applicant had informed the complainant that the said amount is already given to the Electrotherm company and that he should bring no objection certificate from the company. With the aforesaid allegations, the F.I.R. is registered. Hence, the present application.

3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.S.I.Nanavati assisted by learned advocate Mr.Vipul Sundesha appearing for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Vishal Anandjiwala appearing for the complainant and learned APP appearing for the State.

4. Learned Senior Counsel after taking this Court through the record of the present petition would submit that in the year 2015 the complainant has filed a written complaint before the Adipur Police Station (Annexure-R1). He would submit that in that written complaint, name of the present petitioner is missing. No allegations against the present petitioner is made in the written complaint. What is stated therein is only about the incident of abduction of the complainant by accused Shailesh Bhandari and others. He would further submit that since written complaint was not registered as FIR by the concerned Police Station, the petitioner moved the High Court of Gujarat by filing Special Criminal Application No.3424 of 2019 wherein the High Court of Gujarat after considering the report of the SIT, ordered to register the FIR. Even at that time, the name of the present petitioner was not there. He would further submit that the proceedings were unsuccessfully carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and meanwhile, one Mr. Pavan Kumar Gaur filed recall petitions before High Court of Gujarat seeking recalling of the orders, but in none of the proceedings the present petitioner was named. In nutshell it is submitted that the petitioner was never named in the proceedings which started in the year 2015 by filing written complaint before the Adipur Police Station which ultimately culminated into the present FIR consequent to the order passed by this Court unsuccessfully challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

4.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Nanavati would further submit that when the impugned F