Prakash Manchirambhai @ Rambhai Suthar vs State Of Gujarat

Nirzar S. Desai, J

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 bearing No. 8 of 2019 registered with CID Crime Gandhinagar zone Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 114, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3,4,5, and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act and under Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act.

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.

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 their remand. He further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

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.

I have heard the learned advocate for the complainant, who vehemently opposed this application.

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, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

This Court has considered following aspects;

(i) Applicant as per the say of learned advocate Mr. Rahul R Dholakia was director of the company for a limited period of time from 2015 to 2017 whereas the FIR was registered in the year 2019.

(ii) As per the say of present applicant, the applicant is the carpenter by profession and he has nothing to do with the affairs of the company.

(iii) As per the say of learned advocate Mr. Rahul R Dholakia present applicant has not derived any monetary benefit out of the entire scam running into crores of rupees, and aforesaid two aspects could not be disputed upon instruction by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

(iv) Identically situated co-accused namely Mr. Maunish Dineshbhai Shah has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated: 13.01.2020 by co-ordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application NO: 24104 of 2019, hence on the ground of parity this application is allowed.

(v) No past antecedents is attributed to the present applicant.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicants.

This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565.

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 FIR No. 8 of 2019 registered with CID Crime Gandhinagar zone Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar, on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety each 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 05.05.2023 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 residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned 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 applicants, 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 concerned 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.