Manoj Virendra Pratapsingh vs State Of Gujarat

Dr. A. P. Thaker, J

[1] Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.I.H.Saiyed appearing with Mr.K.M.Dastoor, learned advocate for the applicant, learned APP Ms.Mehta for the

respondent-State and Mr.A.D.Oza, learned counsel for complainant at length through video conferencing.

[2] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused has prayed to release

him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR No.I-238 of 2019 registered with Sector- 7 Police Station, Gandhinagar, for the

offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 471, 114 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

[3] Mr.I.H.Saiyed, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant vehemently submitted that the FIR has been lodged against three Trusts and

their trustees. He has also submitted that one Mehul has uploaded the documents on the web site of the government for getting sanction/permission to

start the school. According to him, present petitioner has not created any false documents. He has also submitted that almost all the other accused are

enlarged on bail. He has also submitted that it is alleged by prosecution that the documents for the land of proposed school, which were submitted at

the relevant time are forged but for that action the petitioner has not played any role. He has submitted that considering the fact of release of other

accused on bail, as the present petitioner is similarly situated, on the ground of parity also this application may be allowed. He has submitted that the

petitioner will abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. He further submitted that besides the applicant will be available during the

course of investigation and will not flee away from the justice. In view of the above, learned counsel has submitted that the applicant may be enlarged

on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[4] 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. Learned advocate for the

applicant would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant to oppose such application on

merits may be kept open.

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

gravity of the offence. She submitted that present applicant is involved in forgery of the document and there is sufficient material with regard to the

same. She has submitted that as there is prima facie material against the petitioner, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and the petitioner may

apply for regular bail, as and when he is arrested. In view of above, she prayed to dismiss present application.

[6] Mr.A.D.Oza, learned counsel for original complainant has submitted that all the accused are involved in creating forge documents and the Trusts

are family trusts. He has also contended that the complainant has already filed an affidadvit explaining everything and as per the land record, the land

is agricultural land, therefore, no document could have been made for selling such land. He has also contended that, as per revenue record, one

Mr.Prakash Babubhai Patel is shown to be the owner of the land. While referring to the documentary evidence, he has submitted that by forging the

documents, Trusts and trustees were trying to get monetary benefits, therefore, considering the seriousness of the offence, no anticipatory bail may be

granted to the applicant. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal

Jitamaljiporwala and Another reported in AIR 1987 SC 1321 ,another decision in the case of Ramnarayan Poply v. Central Bureau of Investigation

reported in AIR 2003 SC 2748 and also judgment in the case of Maa Durga Education Trust v. State of Gujarat reported in 2019 (3) GLR 1928.

[6.1] While referring to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench passed in the application of the other trustees, Mr.Oza submitted that the observations

made by this Court is not consonance with the contents of FIR. He has also contended that the offence is grave and as forged documents are

prepared, custodial interrogation is required. Accordingly, he has prayed to dismiss present application.

[7] Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers. It appears from record that entire case of the prosecution is based

on documentary evidence. So far as decision in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamaljiporwala and Another, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1321

is concerned, in that case the offence was under the Customs Act whereas in the present case, there is no violation of provisions of the Customs Act.

[8] It also clear from the decision in the case of Ramnarayan Poply v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2003 SC 274,8 that it was a

case of scam of nationalized bank’s money by Harshad Mehta and his group, whereas in the present case there is no such scam.

[9] It is also an admitted fact that other co-accused are enlarged on bail and since the applicant is similarly situated, on the ground of parity present

application is required to be granted. So far as submission made by Mr.Oza with regard to custodial interrogation is concerned, necessary direction

can be issued in that regard.

[10] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of

allegations, 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 taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as

reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665 and in the case of Sushila Agarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2020 SC 831.

[11] In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR No.I-238 of 2019

registered with Sector-7 Police Station, Gandhinagar, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten

Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that the applicant shall :

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

(b) remain present at concerned Police Station on 21.8.2020 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(c) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade from

disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(d) 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) at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final

disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) 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;

[12] 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 while enlarging the

applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service through e-mail/fax or any other electronic mode is

permitted.