Rakesh Sharadchandra Shah vs State Of Gujarat

Vimal K. Vyas, J

Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

By way of the present application preferred under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered at the Changodar Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) vide CR No.11192015230992 of 2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-accused would submit that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Having heard learned advocate Mr.Nikhil Vyas for the applicant-accused, learned APP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma for the respondent-State and having perused the documents produced on record, it appears that the complaint for the alleged offence has been filed after a period of two and a half months. It further reveals from the FIR that prior to filing of the complaint, the complainant had verified all the bills and vouchers, which suggests that the case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence, which are already in custody of the complainant. It also appears from the record that the co-accused Mr.Jitesh Navinchandra Gajjar, who played similar role, is granted regular bail by the trial Court.

I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the investigation papers and taken into consideration the facts of the case, the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicant-accused, and without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant-accused.

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 Others, reported in [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665, and in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1.

The learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including impositions of conditions with regard to the powers of the Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of the applicant-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest of the applicant herein in connection with the FIR registered at the Changodar Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) vide CR No.11192015230992 of 2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety of the like amount, on the following conditions that he shall:

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

(b) remain present at the concerned Police Station on 1st December 2023 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 facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them 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 his 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 just and proper and the learned Magistrate would decide the same 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 rights of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand if, ultimately, granted, and the powers 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 the 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 made absolute. Direct service is permitted.