IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 961 of 2021 With R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 681 of 2023 ==========================================================

SHILESHBHAI NARSINHBHAI BARVADIYA Versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. CHETAN PANDYA with MR ABHISHEKKUMAR C MALVI(9941) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR DEVANG VYAS(2794) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 MR. HARDIK SONI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 06/06/2023 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)

1. These appeals are filed by the appellants under Section-21 of the National Investigation Agency Act against the order of the Special Judge (NIA), City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad dated 04-03- 2020 in NIA Criminal Misc. Appilcation No.4 of 2020 wherein application for bail of the appellant came to be rejected by reasoned order and and also praying for bail in connection with the offence registered vide RC-06/2017/NIA/DLI for offences under Sections-120(B), 201, 406, 420, 489(A), 489(B), 489(C), 489(D), 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of the Special Judge (NIA), Court No.2, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad dated 09-02-2023 in NIA Criminal Misc. Appilcation No.5 of 2023, wherein application for bail of the appellant came to be rejected by reasoned order and also praying for bail in connection with the offence registered vide RC- 06/2017/NIA/DLI for offences under Sections-120(B), 406, 420, 201, 489(A), 489(B), 489(C), 489(D), 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya for the appellant appearing in Criminal Appeal No.961 of 2021 has submitted that case of the appellant deserves consideration in view of the gross delay in the trial and that the appellant is in custody for more than six and half years. It is submitted that the delay is attributed to the prosecuting agency as de hors the prescribed procedure.

3. List of large number of witnesses are being cited to be examined in support of the prosecution. Therefore, by separate applications, such orders passed for examining other witnesses was challenged before this Court by separate application and by different accused persons as well.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that despite there being several orders of this Court fixing time period to conclude the trial, the Agency is prolonging to conclude the trial.

5. Learned Advocate for the appellant has heavily relied upon observations made by this Court at various stages in the very application and seriously objecting to the shifting of stand by the Prosecuting Agency, when it comes to examining of witnesses, who are cited as witnesses in the Charge-sheet. He has extensively referred to orders passed by this Court at various stages particularly in the oral Judgment dated 06-08-2021, thereafter, on 22-11-2021, 23-12-2021 and lastly on 27-09-2022.

6. Relying upon the aforesaid orders, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that even by order dated 27-09-2022, this Court had directed expeditious disposal of the trial preferably within a period of two months.

7. It is submitted that the Prosecuting Agency had given application of adding list of witnesses, which were 147 in number and therefore, this Court had made remarks in its previous order in this very application. Moreover, there is subsequent application giving out list of witnesses 47 in numbers, which were to be examined by the N.I.A. and therefore, it would be impossible for the Special Court to conclude the trial in stipulated period and therefore, case of the appellant deserves consideration.

8. Over and above aspect of delay, learned Advocate for the appellant has also made submission to make out a case for bail on merits by submitting that even if the evidence of th