Saed Ahmed Mohammed Hafiz Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat

Ilesh J. Vora, 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 the event of his arrest, in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11210030210374 of 2021 registered with Mahidharpura Police Station, Surat,

for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 420, 120(b), 176 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed the offence as alleged against him. The incident took place in the

year 2016 and the FIR has been registered in 2021 i.e. after a span of five years. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the applicant are not true

and correct. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent â€" State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and

gravity of the offence.

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

appears that, the it is a dispute with regard to the financial transactions entered into mainly with the accused Mohammad Hafiz Yusuf Shaikh. This

Court has also considered the fact that, other co-accused have been enlarged on regular bail by this Court and the accused No.4 â€" Suhanabegam

Yusuf Shaikh has been protected by this Court. Accused No.5 â€" Ikbal Abdul Jabbar is also granted anticipatory bail.

Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to the role attributed to the applicant and has also considered the law

laid down by the 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, the application deserves consideration.

In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection

with FIR being C.R.No.11210030210374 of 2021 registered with Mahidharpura Police Station, Surat on his executing personal bond of Rs.10,000/

(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with one surety of like amount on the following conditions;

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

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 28.05.2021 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 them

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 concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial

court within a week;

(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. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.