Amit Ratilal Gokani vs State Of Gujarat

Divyesh A. Joshi, J

The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regularbailinconnectionwith C.R.No.11208050230457 of 2023 registered with ‘A’ Division Police Station, Rajkot City for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. It is submitted that FIR has been registered on 23.06.2023 and in connection with the same, applicant has been arrested on 24.06.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is submitted that the investigation is already completed and after submission of charge-sheet, present application is preferred. Learned advocate further submits that so far as the role of the present applicant accused is concerned, it is alleged that he has borrowed Rs.1.5 crore from the deceased for the purpose of doing business and an oral promise was made by the applicant accused to make the payment double within some stipulated time. The applicant accused could not repay the said amount as per the oral promise and therefore the deceased has committed suicide and a detailed suicide note of 18 pages, purportedly written by the deceased, is part and parcel of the charge-sheet papers. It is submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the applicant has borrowed the money in the year 2017-18 and the deceased has committed suicide on 22.06.2023 i.e. almost after four years. It is further submitted that son of the deceased was working with him but he was not aware about the transaction entered into between the applicant accused and the deceased and after occurrence of the said so-called unfortunate incident and on the strength of the facts narrated by the deceased in the suicide note, accusations and allegations came to be levelled against the applicant accused. It is further submitted that from the papers of charge-sheet, the provisions of Section 107 would not be attracted. It is further submitted that if at the end of trial, the charges levelled against the applicant accused are held to be proved, in that event, the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence would be of 10 years. Considering the above stated factual aspects, applicant may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable terms and conditions.

Learned APP Mr. J. K. Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that role of the present applicant accused is clearly spelt out from charge-sheet papers. It is submitted that deceased has committed suicide due to constant pressure generated on account of the act and action on the part of the present applicant accused by not repaying the amount borrowed by the applicant accused and said fact is clearly revealed from the suicide note of 18 pages purportedly written by the deceased before committing the suicide. Therefore, bail application of the applicant may not be entertained.

Learned advocate Mr. Alok Thakkar who appears on behalf of the complainant has objected present bail application with vehemence and submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that present applicant accused has borrowed huge amount from the deceased with a sole intent to repay the same with some profit. However, the applicant accused has not repaid even the principal amount despite the fact that the deceased has time and again requested to repay the said amount and due to which ultimately the deceased was constrained to borrow money from the market for the purpose of doing his business and ultimately he could not sustain the pressure and ultimately he has no other option but to commit suicide. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar further submits that offence of abetment by instigation depends upon intention of person who abets and not upon act which is done by person who has abetted. It is further submitted that abetment may be made by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section

A continued course of conduct which creates such circumstances that deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide would satisfy the ingredients of instigation to commit suicide or abetment of suicide and the documents available on record clearly goes on to show that the present applicant accused has acted and instigated the deceased to commit suicide and said fact is fortified from the suicide note written by the deceased in his own handwriting. Hence, applicant may not be enlarged on bail.

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 FIR has been registered on 23.06.2023 and in connection with the same, applicant has been arrested on 24.06.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is submitted that the investigation is already completed and after submission of charge-sheet, present application is preferred. So far as the role of the present applicant accused is concerned, it is alleged that he has borrowed Rs.1.5 crore from the deceased for the purpose of doing business and an oral promise was made by the applicant accused to make the payment double within some stipulated time. The applicant accused could not repay the said amount as per the oral promise and therefore the deceased has committed suicide and a detailed suicide note of 18 pages, purportedly written by the deceased, is part and parcel of the charge-sheet papers. It is submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the applicant has borrowed the money in the year 2017-18 and the deceased has committed suicide on 22.06.2023 i.e. almost after four years. It is also found from the record that if at the end of trial, the charges levelled against the applicant accused are held to be proved, in that event, the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence would be of 10 years. The trial would take its own time. Thus, considering the aforesaid factual aspects, I am inclined to consider this application.

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 and the applicant is ordered to be released on regularbailinconnectionwith C.R.No.11208050230457 of 2023 registered with ‘A’ Division Police Station, Rajkot City, 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;

[g] not to enter into Rajkot city for a period of 12 months except for marking presence and attending the Court proceedings.

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 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.

The present application stands allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.