Ketanbhai Pravinbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat

Divyesh A. Joshi, J

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent – State.

The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regularbailinconnectionwith C.R.No.11197046230837 of 2023 registered with Sinor Police Station, Vadodara Rural for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 418, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned advocate Mr. Vasimraja Kureshi 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. It is submitted that applicant has been arrested on 13.10.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is further submitted that investigation is already concluded and present application is filed after submission of charge-sheet. He further submits that as per the case of the prosecution, the so-called incident is occurred during the period between 11.06.2019 to 14.03.2023 and FIR has been registered on 12.10.2023. Therefore, there is gross delay of more than 7 months in registering the complaint and there is no justification for delay in registering the FIR. It is further submitted that initially FIR is filed against total 8 accused persons and except the present applicant accused, rest of the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail. Learned advocate Mr. Kureshi submits that in fact it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons have hatched a conspiracy and as a part of conspiracy they have acted in a particular direction by making hand in glove with each other. The accused nos. 1 and 2 have, with an intention to dupe the complainant and witnesses, created certain false and fabricated documents and forged the same. So far as the role of the present applicant accused is concerned, it is alleged that he has impersonated himself as the son of the owner of the property and under the guise of the said name shelter he received amount from the complainant in presence of the witnesses and all the accused have created the forge documents to the effect that original property owners have passed away though they were alive and consent letter as well as sell deed had been executed wherein photographs of the present applicant accused were pasted. The charge of conspiracy with connivance of each other was levelled against all the accused persons and by and large role of all the accused persons are much or less similar and identical one. The other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. That all the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate. The investigation is already concluded and during the course of investigation, the investigating officer has collected all the documents and those documents are forming part of charge-sheet papers. Therefore, there is no chance of tampering with those documents. That number of persons have been cited as witnesses and the record is very bulky, huge and voluminous. Thus, considering the principle of law of parity and above stated factual aspects, present bail application may be allowed.

Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is further submitted that a specific role and name of the present applicant accused has been spelt out from the charge-sheet papers. The present applicant accused has impersonated himself as son of the original owner and though the original owners were alive, the accused persons have created the documents showing that they passed away. The applicant accused and other accused persons have hatched conspiracy and taken huge volume of amount from the complainant and other victims. Thus, considering the above stated factual aspects, applicant may not be enlarged on bail.

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 investigation is already concluded and charge-sheet is filed. The applicant is in jail since 13.10.2023. That all the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate. That the persons who have played identical role have been enlarged on bail. Thus, considering the aforesaid factual aspects as well as principle of law of parity, I am inclined to exercise 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 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 and the applicant is ordered to be released on regularbailinconnectionwith C.R.No.11197046230837 of 2023 registered with Sinor Police Station, Vadodara Rural, 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;

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 observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

The present application stands allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.