Paritoshbhai Ambalal Patel vs State Of Gujarat

Ilesh J. Vora, J

Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

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

bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11191011210090 of 2021 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad City District: Ahmedabad

City for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 114 of IPC.

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He further

submits that for the same transaction, two different FIRs have been filed for which in both the matters, the applicant herein has been extended the

benefit of anticipatory bail. The main accused i.e. accused no.3 has been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Custodial interrogation of the applicant is not essential for the purpose of investigation.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent â€" State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail stating inter alia that

the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature and custodial interrogation is necessary for further investigation of the case.

Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of

the case, it appears that the entire transaction which is subject matter of offence has allegedly took place between the complainant, his mother and

accused no.3. The present applicant is Director of the company managed by accused no.3. The allegations alleged against the accused no.3 that he

failed to handover possession and has not executed the sale-deed of the alleged flats as company failed to complete the construction in a reasonable

period. The main accused i.e. accused no.3 has been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The dispute is

based on documentary evidence. In this background facts, custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not necessary and considering the role

attributed to the present applicant, the matter deserves consideration.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the role attributed to the present applicant in the alleged offence, I find no reason to

decline pre-arrest bail to the applicant. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of

his arrest in connection with a FIR being C.R. No.11191011210090 of 2021 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad City District:

Ahmedabad City on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following

conditions:

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

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 15.02.2022 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 Trial 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.