Sureshbhai Gaurishanker Vyas vs State Of Gujarat

Ashutosh J. Shastri, J

1.0 Present application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking Anticipatory Bail as the applicant is apprehending arrest

in connection F.I.R. bearing C.R.No.A/11189003200156 of 2020 registered with City “A†Division Police Station, Morbi for the alleged offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.0 Heard, learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.J.K.Shah.

3.0 Mr.Chintan Popat, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that the applicant is aged about 61 years and is not having any criminal

background of whatsoever nature. It has been submitted that in usual course of business, he has prepared the stamp but, there is no specific role

attributed to the applicant. On the contrary, the applicnt has except in routine business, has not yield anything out of the incident in question. The

applicant is doing this business uninterreptedly for about 20 years and nothing has happened throughout. At the best, even if the allegations are to be

taken as it is, then also the only negligence is being reflected is that without proper verification, he prepared the stamp but, he is not at all connected

with the offence in question and has been falsely roped into prosecution.

4.0 Learned advocate has further submitted that during the span of 20 years, the applicant has supplied several stamps on demand to various offences,

namely, Collector office, Mamlatdar Office, Panchayat Office and some courts also purchased the stamp from the applicant but, till date, except this

episode, nothing has happened from which any inference can be drawn that the applicant is involved in commission of offence. Even apart from that

looking to the assertion also, the applicant is not at all even main accused as well. Additionally, Mr.Popat, learned advocate, has submitted that the

order which has been passed by the court below is nothing but a copy paste from the order of main accused and thereby, a serious angle is given to

the applicant’s case. But, in reality, the applicant has not played any role in actual commission of offence. To substantialy his submission, the

learned advocate has placed on record the order passed in case of Vishalbhai Bharatbhai Pancholi in Criminal Misc. Application No.112 of 2020 dated

12.2.2020 and after drawing attention to Para.3, 4 and 5 as compared with the present impugned order, has drawn the attention of the Court that a

mere copy paste from the said order is made by the learned Judge while passing the impugned order in the present application and actual role has not

been examined by the court below. Apart from that, learned advocate has submitted that even from the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer as

well, the only allegation which can be at the best levelled is that without any supporting material, the stamps have been prepared and given it to the

accused persons. But, in actual commission of crime, there is no role reflects from any corner of the record. Learned advocate has submitted that if

the anticipatory bail is refused to the appliant, the entire reputation will be at stake and there will be far reaching consequence not only upon the

business but, upon his family members as well. This being the position, considering his age also, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail

since the applicant is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions which this Court deemd it proper. In view of all these circumstances, a

request is made to grant anticipatory bail.

5.0 As against this, Mr.J.K.Shah, learned APP, has submitted that this applicant’s preparation of stamp has been utilized by other co-accused for

some oblique purpose for which the complaint is filed and, therefore, the applicant cannot plead his innocence that he is completely unaware about this

fact. On the contrary, when such kind of stamps are to be prepared, it is the duty of the applicant to get the support from any material before

preparation of stamp. Having not done so, at this stage, the applicant cannot plead the innocence. Howeer, the learned APP has candidly submitted

that the applicant is not having any criminal antecedents which are reported and is aged about 61 years and ultimately, has left it to the discretion of

the Court.

6.0 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having gone through overall material on record, prima facie, it appears from the

order passed by the trial court that the trial court has not analyzed the exact role or the attribution against the present applicant and to some extent,

Mr.Virat Popat, learned advocate, is justified that the impugned order is nothing but substantially the copy paste from the order which was passed in

case of Vishalbhai Bharatbhai Pancholi, who was the main accused. Therefore, there appears to be no cogent reason available from the order passed

against the applicant. Undisputedly, the applicant is aged about 61 years and is having a standing in this business for about 20 years and also having no

criminal antecedent of whatsoever nature, the applicant deserves to be granted anticipaotyr bail since from the affidavit of the Investigating Officer

also, nothing much incriminating in nature is visible. When that be so, the Court is inclined to consider the request of the applicant.

7.0 This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of

Maharashtra & Ors. reported in [2011] 1 SCC 694 ,wherein, the Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of

Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in [1980] 2 SCC 565.

8.0 Learned Counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.

9.0 In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that, in the event, the applicant herein is arrested pursuant to F.I.R. bearing I-

C.R.No.A/11189003200156 of 2020 registered with City “A†Division Police Station, Morbi, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a

bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on 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 14th August,2020 between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm;

[c] shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so as to

dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;

[d] shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence

till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;

[e] will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court immediately.

[f] It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand, if h considers it just and proper and the concerned Magistrate would

decide it on merits.

10.0 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.

11.0 Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

12.0 The Registry is directed to communicate this order by fax or e-mail to the trial court.