Lavkumar Dineshbhai Agravat vs State Of Gujarat

Divyesh A. Joshi, J

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for respondent – State of Gujarat.

The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11208035230802/2023 registered with the Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 386 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5, 40 and 42 of the Money Lenders Act.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the so-called incident has taken place for the period between 01.08.2023 to 17.08.2023, for which, the FIR has been lodged on 17.08.2023 and the applicant has been arrested in connection with the same on 06.10.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Learned advocate submitted that now the investigation is completed and after submission of the chargesheet, the present application is preferred. Learned advocate submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased had borrowed certain amount from the present applicant – accused and more than sufficient amount has already been repaid by the deceased and despite repaying it to the applicant – accused along with interest, the applicant – accused used to demand huge compounding interest and thereby the applicant – accused meted out mental harassment and because of the constant harassment at the hands of the applicant – accused, the deceased had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance leaving behind a suicide note, however at the time of registration of the FIR, the complainant has not given suicide note to the police and on the contrary, the complainant has come with specific case that detailed accounts was prepared by his brother (i.e. the deceased). Learned advocate submitted that during the course of investigation, the concerned IO has prepared recovery panchnama and suicide note was recovered and the complainant stated that the wordings employed in the said letter pertains to him and as per the dictation given by his brother, he has written the said accounts on the notes in his handwring. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that there were two different versions have been narrated by the complainant within no time. Learned advocate submitted that as stated above, the so-called incident of consuming poisonous substance has taken place on 01.08.2023 and immediately thereafter, the deceased was taken to hospital, where he was kept upto 17.08.2023 and on 17.08.2023, he passed away, however during that period, the deceased had not given any history with regard to the harassment meted out by the applicant nor any complaint has been filed by him, which suggests that there is false implication of the applicant herein. Learned advocate also submitted that there is inordinate and unexplained delay caused in filing aforesaid FIR. Learned advocate submitted that the applicant has not aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Learned advocate submitted that name of other persons were also there in the suicide note as well as in the so-called accounts prepared by the complainant/ deceased. It is, therefore, urged that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

Learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the role of the present applicant is clearly spelt out from the papers of the chargesheet. Learned APP submitted that on account of the constant harassment meted out by the applicant to the deceased, the deceased committed suicide and the said fact is found out from the statements of the witnesses. Learned APP has referred to the statements of the witnesses recording during the course of investigation, wherein they have stated that due to constant and incessant harassment and torture meted out by the applicant – accused, the deceased had no option but to commit suicide and the suicide note purportedly written by the deceased is found out by the IO and the language employed in the suicide note clearly goes on to show that on account of the harassment meted out by the applicant – accused and other persons, the deceased committed suicide and the said suicide note is forwarded to FSL for the purpose of obtaining report from the handwriting expert. Learned APP, therefore, urged that considering above factual aspects, the present application may not be entertained.

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 the present application is preferred after submission of the chargesheet and now the investigation is completed and the applicant is in jail since 08.10.2023. There is no proximate cause shown in the FIR. Further there is difference of version in the suicide note and the complain. Therefore considering the above factual aspects, the present application requires consideration.

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. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11208035230802/2023 registered with the Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot 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 concerned 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.

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