Sattarbhai Abdulbhai Mansuri vs State Of Gujarat

A.G.Uraizee, J

RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

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 registered as C.R No.I-111114200362 of 2020 before Ellisbridge Police

Station, District: Ahmedabad for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120(B), 34, 255, 259 and 260 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard Mr. Asifkhan I. Pathan, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned APP for the respondent No.1.

Mr. Pathan, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the investigation qua co-accused person is over and charge-sheet is filed. It is his

submission that the applicant is not named in the FIR, however, he is implicated as accused No.7 in the charge-sheet on the basis of statement of co-

accused person and is arraigned in the FIR on the basis of statement of Fahad Makbul Ahmed Shaikh. He submits that father of this witness i.e.

Makbul is co-accused person. It is his further submission that similarly situated co-accused person is released on anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate

bench of this Court on conditions, among others of deposing the amount of commission received by him. He, therefore, submits that the applicant may

be enlarged on anticipatory bail on appropriate conditions considering the nature of allegation and evidence against the applicant.

Mr. Soni, learned APP for the respondent has resisted this application. He submits that the applicant has 11 criminal antecedents of similar nature.

He submits that the applicant is in collision with other accused person has defrauded the complainant-bank to the tune of Rs.18,07,93,514/-. He

submits that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to unearth the fraud committed by the accused persons. It is his submission that if

released on anticipatory bail, the applicant is likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence and thereby hamper the investigation. He, therefore, urges

that the applicant may not be enlarged on bail. However, he submits that if the Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail, reasons may not be

assigned on the merits of the case.

Mr. Dhruv Rana, learned advocate for the complainant has adopted the arguments of Mr. Soni, learned APP. Additionally, he submits that the case

of the applicant cannot be equated with the co-accused person who is released on regular bail. It is his submission that exact amount of commission is

not received by the applicant is not known as he had received the commission in cash. He submits that the bank is defrauded to the tune Rupees

Eighteen Crore and odd and, therefore considering a gravity of the amount, the applicant may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

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 Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State

of Maharashtra and Ors. as reported at [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional

Bench in the the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the

evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail

on condition that the applicant shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before the learned trial Court within a period of three months from today. Upon deposition of

the aforesaid amount, the learned trial Court shall transmit the same to the Complainant â€" Bank by Account Payee Ceque after due indentification

and verification and subject to the final outcome of the trial. Hence, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein

being arrested pursuant to FIR registered as C.R No.I-111114200362 of 2020 before Ellisbridge Police Station, District: Ahmedabad, the applicant

shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/-(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 23rd December, 2020 between 10.00 a.m. and 3.00 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;

(h) deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before the learned trial Court within a period of three months from today

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. Direct service is permitted.

Registry is directed to accept the appearance of Mr. Dhruv Rana, learned advocate for complainant-bank.