Shaikh Mohammed Hanif Usmanbhai 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 has prayed for anticipatory bail in

connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11209020220017 of 2022 registered with Idar Police Station, District: Sabarkantha for the offence punishable

under Sections 406, 409, 420 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that neither the applicant is partner of Dolphin Agro Company nor the applicant is named in any

partnership deed or any sort of partnership contract. He further submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged

offence therefore, the application may be allowed.

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 parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, it

appears that except the reference of the applicant herein, nothing brought on record to indicate that he was partner of Dolphin Agro Company. Upon

bare perusal of the FIR, it shows that the Co-accused have issued the cheques as referred in the FIR, meaning thereby, they have accepted their legal

liability to pay the amount to the persons named in the FIR. It is submitted that the present applicant is not in any manner holding the account with the

Company and he has never signed any of the alleged cheques. There is no possibility of his fleeing from justice and tampering with the evidence. In

this background of the facts, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present application deserves consideration and the applicant

is entitled to pre-arrest bail.

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. 11209020220017 of 2022 registered with Idar Police Station, District: Sabarkantha 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 today.