Bharat Chandralal Tilwani vs State Of Gujarat

A.S. Supehia, J

RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent â€" State.

[1] Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties by video conferencing.

[2] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory

bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I- 39 of 2019 registered with Gujarat University Police Station, District Ahmedabad City for the

offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[3] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is

not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, as well as trial also and will not flee

from justice. He further submits that the other co-accused have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. He

has further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR.

He has submitted the applicant signed the amended sale -deed as a witness, which is not sufficient to arrive on conclusion about the applicant being

involved in the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the present dispute is regarding the recovery of loan which is between the

accused No. 4 and the bank and the present applicant has nothing to do with the prevailing dispute. Further, it is submitted that there is a delay in

lodging the FIR as the offence committed in the year 2013 and the FIR was filed in the year 2019 and hence there is a huge delay approximately

seven years in registering the FIR and no sufficient explanation has been given by the complainant in lodging the FIR.

[4] Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including imposition

of conditions with regard to powers of investigating agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submits that

upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

Learned advocate, therefore, submits that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

[5] On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondentâ€" State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail

looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

[6] Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case,

nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to the applicant.

[7] This Court has considered following aspects;

(a) other co-accused have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court;

(b) Applicant is not named in the FIR;

(c) There is a delay of seven years in registering the FIR for which no satisfactorily explanation has been given by the complainant.

[8] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi), AIR

2020 SC 831.

[9] In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR

being C.R. No.I- 39 of 2019 registered with Gujarat University Police Station, District Ahmedabad City on his executing a personal bond of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that he :

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 15.06.2021 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him

from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till

the final disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial

court within a week; and

(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would

decide it on merits;

[10] Despite this order, it would be open for the investigating agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The

applicant shall remain present before the concerned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may

be directed by the concerned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the

application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of

remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the concerned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the

applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other

conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

[11] At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

[12] The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

[13] Registry is directed to intimate the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court about the present order by sending a copy of this

order through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.

[14] Learned advocate for the applicant is also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court

through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.