Jayantilal Jethalal Thakkar (Thacker) vs State Of Gujarat

Vipul M. Pancholi, J

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

The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.I-2

of 2019 registered with CID Crime Border Zone Police Station, Kutch Bhuj for offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code.

Learned Advocate 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.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and

gravity of the offence.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned advocate Mr.Jayesh Dave appearing for the original complainant have opposed this application.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to the averments made in the affidavit filed by the Police Inspector, Fraud Cell, CID Crime,

Gujarat and thereafter contended that the applicant has committed very serious offences and therefore this Court may not exercise discretion in his

favour. It is also contended that there are antecedents against the applicant and, therefore also, this Court may not entertain this application.

Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

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, this Court is of the opinion that this is

a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

This Court has considered following aspects;

(a) the applicant is in jail since 16.5.2019; (b)investigation is concluded and chargesheet is filed; (c) the case is triable by court of Magistrate; (d) it is

submitted that other co-accused have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court, copy of the said orders are produced on record; (e) it is further

submitted that for the transaction which had taken place in the year 2010, FIR is lodged in the year 2019, thus, there is a delay of nine years in lodging

the FIR; it is further submitted that even the loan amount has been paid by the concerned person in the year 2014 and the said aspect is not disputed; it

is further submitted 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 22.2.2006, though the mother of the complainant has expired in the year 1988;

(f) no monetary loss is caused to the complainant/bank as the entire loan amount has been repaid in the year 2014; (g) it is required to be noted that a

specific contention is taken by learned senior advocate appearing for the applicant that against the applicant, various FIRs are registered after the

applicant was arrested in connection with the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code with a malafide intention; it is submitted that except the

FIR which is registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, in some of the other cases, the proceedings are stayed by this Court in the application

filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in rest of the cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail; (h) looking to the over all

facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant.

This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.I-2 of 2019

registered with CID Crime Border Zone Police Station, Kutch Bhuj on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten 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 injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned trial court;

[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station between 1st to 10th day 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 the concerned trial 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 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 prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

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