Amresh Jayprakash Sinh 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.11196040230002/2023 registered with the Cyber Crime Police Station, Vadodara City for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the so-called incident has taken place for the period between 01.11.2022 to 17.01.2023, for which, the FIR has been lodged on 17.01.2023 and the applicant has been arrested in connection with the same on 18.03.2023 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 initially FIR is filed against total three accused persons and the Trustee of Saraswathi Ammal Educational and Charitable Trust, wherein the applicant is not named as accused. Learned advocate submitted that it is found out during the course of investigation that the present applicant is one of the Trustees of one Trust, wherein an amount of Rs.30,70,000/- were deposited by the complainant through cheque under the assurance that the daughter of the complainant would get admission in MBBS and, thereafter, nothing was done. Learned advocate further submitted that the applicant is one of the Trustees of the Trust and the amount was deposited in the account run by the present applicant i.e. in the account of Delhi Public School Junior Trust and, thereafter subsequently, the said amount was transferred in the account of one Bimlesh, who has not been joined as accused but during the course of investigation, the statement of said Bimlesh was recorded, wherein he has stated in categoric terms that entire scheme was organized by one Premprakash and the said Premprakash is the husband of one Chandanikumari, who is Trustee of said Delhi Public School Junior Trust and the said Bimlesh was working as Accountant in the said Trust. Learned advocate submitted that during the course of investigation, the concerned IO has also collected statement of the bank account of the Trust, wherein entry pertain to said transaction is found out, which clearly goes on to show that the amount, which was deposited in the account, was subsequently transferred in the account of Delhi Public School Junior Trust and the present applicant is not directly or indirectly concerned with the said account and the applicant has not received single penny and he has been arraigned as accused in the present case solely on the ground that he is one of the Trustees of the Saraswathi Ammal Educational and Charitable Trust, wherein in first of point of time, cheque of the complainant has been deposited by the co-accused and those co-accused, who have actively participated in the commission of crime, have not been yet arrested and are shown absconding account. Learned advocate submitted that all the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate. Learned advocate, at the outset, submitted that the to show bonafide, the applicant is ready and willing to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- before the concerned trial court without prejudice to his rights and contentions within ten days from the date of his release, for which, the applicant has also filed an undertaking, copy of which is produced on record. 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 and other accused persons are yet to be arrested and, hence, 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 18.03.2023. I have considered the allegations leveled against the applicant and also the role attributed to him at the time of commission of crime and found that except Trustee of the Trust, he has not actively participated in the commission of crime. Further all the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate. Further the bonafides are shown by the applicant to deposit Rs.2,00,000/-before the concerned trial court within ten days from the date of his release. Therefore considering the above factual aspects and in view of the willingness shown by the applicant, 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.11196040230002/2023 registered with the Cyber Crime Police Station, Vadodara 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] deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- before the concerned trial court without prejudice to his rights and contentions within a ten days from the date of his release and shall file such undertaking before the concerned trial court within a week from the date of his release and abide by the undertaking filed by him before 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.