Aashish Jaychand Gavali vs State Of Gujarat

Divyesh A. Joshi, J

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

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.11196003230692/2023 registered with the Manjalpur Police Station, Vadodara for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the so-called incident has taken place for the period between 18.06.2021 to 24.08.2023, for which, the FIR has been lodged on 24.08.2023 and the applicant has been arrested in connection with the same on 28.08.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Learned advocate submitted that now the investigation is completed and after submission of the chargesheet, the present application is preferred. Learned advocate submitted that FIR is filed against total three accused persons, wherein the applicant is shown as accused no.2, however other co-accused have already been considered by this Court. Learned advocate submitted that the present applicant was working an employee (Manager) in Laksh Management Consultancy and as a part of his job, he has apprised the persons, who used to pay visit in the office and towards the consultancy charges, the applicant has received the amount from those interested persons and, thereafter, the said amount has been transferred in the account of said Consultancy and certain amount has been transferred in the account of Forex for the process of Visa fees, however, the applicant has not derived the benefit of single penny out of said transaction except his salary. Learned advocate submitted that during the course of investigation, certain personal accounts of the applicant were collected by the IO and bank account of Laksh Management Consultancy has already been seized. Learned advocate submitted that all the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate and the case of the prosecution hinges upon documentary evidence. It is, therefore, urged that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the role of the present applicant is clearly spelt out from the papers of the chargesheet. Learned APP submitted that the present applicant has received certain amount in his account, however, the said amount was subsequently transferred in the account of Laksh Management Consultancy but at the instance of the present applicant, number of persons have deposited huge amount in the Laksh Consultancy and at the time of commission of crime, the applicant has actively participated, which is coming on record. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may not be entertained.

Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of the investigation and considered the allegations levelled against the applicant and the role played by the applicant. It is found out from the record that the present application is preferred after submission of the chargesheet and now the investigation is completed and the applicant is in jail since 28.08.2023. I have considered the role attributed to the present applicant at the time of commission of crime and the role attributed to other co-accused, who have been considered by this Court. All the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate and entire case of the prosecution hinges upon documentary evidence, which have already been collected by the IO. Therefore considering the above factual aspects and on the ground of parity, the present application deserves to be allowed.

This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40 as well as in case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11196003230692/2023 registered with the Manjalpur Police Station, Vadodara on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

[f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;

The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.

At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.