Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta vs State Of Gujarat

Vipul M. Pancholi, J

By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicantÂaccused has prayed for anticipatory

bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I â€" 2 of 2019 registered with CID Crime Border Zone, Bhuj, for the offenses punishable under

Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 506 of IPC.

Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Yogesh S. Lakhani assisted by learned advocate Mr. Hardik A. Dave for the applicant and learned APP Mr.

Dabhi for the respondent Â​ State.

Learned counsel Mr. Lakhani for the applicant mainly contended that the FIR in question is lodged in the year 2019 i.e. on 17.04.2019 for the

alleged incident which has occurred during the period between 2010 to 2014 wherein the applicant is falsely implicated. It is submitted that CID Crime

is investigating into two other FIRs lodged against the applicant prior to lodging of the present FIR. Learned counsel has referred the order dated

25.05.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.20, City Civil & Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.3125 of 2018 and

allied matters in connection with FIR being C.R.No.IÂ3 of 2018 registered with CID Crime, Gandhinagar Zone Police Station, whereby the Additional

Sessions Court has released the applicant on anticipatory bail in connection with the said case by observing that the dispute between the said

complainant and the applicant is of civil nature and in the commercial transaction applicant has been implicated.

Thereafter, learned counsel has referred the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by this Court, wherein it has been observed that the applicant had

resigned as a Director of the company w.e.f. 01.10.2015. This Court has also granted protection to the applicant. It is submitted that investigation of

the said case has been transferred to CID Crime and now third compliant is registered i.e. the present FIR against the applicant and others.

Learned counsel has thereafter referred the document produced at page 111 of the compilation along with affidavitÂinÂrejoinder as well as the

document produced at page 112 of the compilation and submitted that the complainant has in fact signed as a witness to the document entered into in

the year 2006 whereby a particular land has been sold in the name of his mother in favour of one Tokarshi Pragji Jobanputra. It is further submitted

that in the said sale transaction photograph of wife of the complainant has been affixed by projecting his wife as Vrajkunvarba Jethuji Jadeja. Thus,

looking to the conduct of the complainant it is contended that the FIR in question is filed with mala fide intention.

It is further contended that for the loan which has taken in the year 2010, entire amount has been paid in the year 2014 and the concerned bank has

no grievance with regard to the transaction in question. It is contended that it appears that the complainant has availed the loan in the name of his

mother and the account has been operated by the family member of the complainant. The loan amount which was deposited in the account of the

mother of the complainant in the year 2010 was thereafter transferred in the name of one Arpit International i.e. in favour of the original accused Nos.

1 and 2. It is also contended that applicant was having business transaction with the accused Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Arpit International and therefore in the

business transaction the amount in question has been transferred in the account of Bhadresh Agro wherein the applicant is one of the Directors.

It is further submitted that when the entire amount of loan has been repaid in the year 2014 there was no reason for the complainant to file FIR in

the year 2019. Learned counsel for the applicant thereafter submitted that this Court has considered the case of the co accused viz. Bhadresh

Vasantrai Mehta vide separate order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.9427 of 2019. The present applicant is wife of coÂaccused viz.

Bhadresh Vasantrai Mehta. It is contended that the present applicant has already resigned as Director in the year 2017. It is contended that in the

transaction in question, no monetary loss is caused to the complainant and/or the concerned bank. He, therefore, urged that this application be allowed

and applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary.

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

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 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.

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

On the other hand, learned APP has vehemently opposed this application and referred the affidavitÂinÂreply filed by Mr. M.U.Masi, Detective

Police Inspector, Fraud Cell, CID, Crime, Gujarat State. Learned APP has more particularly referred the allegations and averments made in para 7 of

the affidavit.

After referring to the same, it is contended that custodial interrogation of the present applicant is required in the facts and circumstances of the

present case and therefore this Court may not entertain this application.

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.

This Court has also considered the following aspects:

(a) Having gone through the material produced on record as well as the allegations levelled against the applicant, it appears that there is gross delay in

lodging the FIR. It is not in dispute that the transaction in question has taken place in the year 2010 and the loan amount has been repaid in the year

2014, whereas the FIR is filed in April, 2019.

(b) It is further revealed from the material that the complainant himself has signed as a witness in the sale deed executed by his mother viz.

Vrajkunvarba Jethuji Jadeja. The said sale deed was executed on 22.02.2006 though the mother of the complainant has expired in the year 1988.

(c) It is not in dispute that when the application was submitted to the concerned investigating agency, the statement of the applicant was recorded and

thereafter FIR in question is filed. The case of the prosecution rests on documentary evidence and the said documents are collected by the

investigating agency during the course of the investigation.

(d) No monetary loss is caused to the complainant and/or bank as the entire loan amount has been repaid in the year 2014.

(e) Though other two FIRs are registered against the applicant, it is not in dispute that while releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail by the Sessions

Court in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.IÂ3 of 2018 registered with CID Crime, Gandhinagar Zone Police Station, the Sessions Court has

observed that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and in commercial transaction, applicant has been implicated. Similarly, in another FIR

being C.R.No.IÂ​152 of 2017 registered with Dehgam Police Station, this Court has granted protection to the applicant.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and therefore I am inclined

to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant.

This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs.

State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution

Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.

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

being C.R. No. I â€" 2 of 2019 registered with CID Crime Border Zone, Bhuj, on her executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten

Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that she:

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

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 01.07.2019 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 Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the 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;

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 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 in the present order.

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