IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the civil nature of the dispute, the evidence available, and the legal principles related to bail before granting regular bail to the applicant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11197005240107 of 2024 registered with the Vadodara Taluka Police Station, Vadodara Rural of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned senior counsel Mr. Devang Nanavati assisted by learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 01.02.2024 and is in jail ever since. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has also submitted that the investigation is underway and the present application is at pre-indictment stage. It is further submitted that the first information report was registered against total four accused persons placing the present applicant-accused as accused No.1. According to the complaint, the alleged incident took place during the period between 09.11.2020 and 15.03.2022 for which the first information report came to be registered on 31.01.2024, i.e after a delay of almost two years. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati further submits that, in fact, the complainant and the applicant-accused are the partners of the firm, namely, Shreeji Inc. and the present complaint is a clear cut offshoot of the wrecked relationship of the partners due to some financial disputes. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has also submitted that a partnership deed was executed between total seven partners on 19.12.2019 scattering into two groups consisting of four persons and three persons respectively. According to the complaint, the applicant-accused has illegally withdrawn an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- through two different transactions without the knowledge of the complainant and other partners. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has further submitted that to counter such allegation, the statement of the bank account of the applicant-accused has also been appended along with the memo of the application which shewed that the applicant-accused has in all invested Rs.78,57,940/- in terms of his 10% share in the partnership firm which is clearly mentioned in the partnership deed. It is moreso submitted that with the assent of all the partners, the present applicant-accused and the complainant had been appointed as the authorized signatories for conducting any kind of legal documentation work or else on behalf of the firm. In short, they are the authorized signatories legally appointed by the partners. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati submits that subsequently, with the assent of all the partners, one of the partners, namely, Subhashbhai Gordhanbhai Kanani had also been appointed as the authorized signatory a declaration whereof was issued on the letterhead of the company on 01.08.2020 containing signatures of all the partners and they are not having any slightest of doubt as regards the authenticity of the said documents. Even they have fairly and candidly admitted about the execution of the said document.

4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has further submitted that on 09.11.2020, a letter was addressed to the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India on the letterhead of the company purportedly signed by three of the partners requesting the Bank to add the name of Mr. Subhashkumar G. Kanani into the existing bank account of the firm. It is stated in the said letter that the names of two partners were already there as the signatories of the firm, and once the name of the third partner is added to the account, then kindly consider any two partners signature to clear the cheques submitted for clearance. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has also submitted that even the signature of the complainant is also there on the said document and now he is raising objections about the authenticity of the said document stating that h