Gautam Devchand Valani vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Abhaykumar P. Shah on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Ankit Shah on behalf of the first informant.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 11205042220432 of 2022 registered with Bhuj City 'A' Division Police Station, District Kachchh, on 24.05.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Advocate Mr. Abhaykumar Shah for the applicant would submit that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Advocate Mr. Abhaykumar Shah 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. Learned Advocate would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

This application has been vehemently opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Dabhi appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, who would submit that looking to the nature and gravity of the offence the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail by this Court.

Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having perused the investigating papers as well as documents on record, the following relevant aspects are considered by this Court:

[1] That while the present FIR has been lodged on 24.05.2022, it appears that the present applicant had lodged an FIR against the present first informant on 06.03.2021 i.e. approximately 14 months earlier and whereas the transactions which are mentioned in the present FIR, where the same transactions have mentioned in the FIR filed by the present applicant.

[2] Prima facie it appears that there is some commercial dispute between the parties and whereas both the parties, have attempted to use the police machinery for resolving the commercial disputes.

[3] It also appears that the parties are having a commercial relationship from 2012.

[4] Furthermore, insofar as the submission that the present applicant has antecedents of being involved in such activity, it appears that the antecedents as relied upon by learned Advocate for the first informant, are with regard to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and whereas many of the complainants in such complaints, are close relatives of the present first informant.

In this view of the matter and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to the FIR No. 11205042220432 of 2022 registered with Bhuj City 'A' Division Police Station, District Kachchh, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions:

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

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 23.07.2022 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

(c) shall mark his presence at the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of three months;

(d) 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;

(e) 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;

(f) 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 or till further orders;

(g) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passport shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week.

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining 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 learned 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.

At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.