Vandit Bharat Shah vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Ms. Taruna R. Makwana on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.L.B. Dabhi on behalf of the respondent-State.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant – original accused prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.-11191036220276 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City on 6.5.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Advocate Ms. Taruna Makwana for the applicant states that, it prima facie appears that there is no transaction between the present applicant and the first informant and whereas it appears that the main accused, Chetan Panchal appears to have misused the name of the present applicant. Learned advocate would submit that the co-accused has already been released by this Court by order dated 7.7.2022.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Considering the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Makwana and learned APP for the respondent State and having perused the investigation papers and also the orders of this Court whereby the co-accused was released, while this Court proposes not to discuss the evidence in detail, that the following aspects have been taken into consideration by this Court.

[1] It appears that in so far as the applicant is concerned, the allegations made by the first informant is that on 12.1.2022 the main accused Mr. Chetan Panchal had requested for sale of goods from the first informant at the behest of the present applicant and whereas it is further mentioned in the FIR that after the goods have been ordered, the present applicant had called up the first informant and assured him that he will make the payments of the goods within one day. As against the same, in the further statement, recorded on 23.6.2022, it appears that the first informant had given a different version where he states that upon the money not being paid he had tried to contact the present applicant and whereas initially the present applicant had asked the first informant to send the bill and thereafter the present applicant had informed the first informant that he had not ordered for the goods in question therefore he was not required to pay any money to the first informant.

[2] It prima facie appears that there is no transaction between the present applicant and the first informant and whereas it appears that the main accused, Chetan Panchal, appears to have misused the name of the present applicant.

[3] It would also be pertinent to note that the co-accused has been released by this Court.

Having regard to the circumstances in question, and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

Learned Advocates for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR No.- 11191036220276 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 the concerned Police Station on 17.8.2022 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 or till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passports shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week.

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. 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 to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.