Allowed

Dhulaji Nanaji Thakor v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC14 Feb 2019CR.MA/24254/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court of Gujarat granted anticipatory bail to the applicant accused of cheating and forgery. The court noted a gross delay in filing the FIR, the documentary nature of the case, and the applicant's potential role, ruling that custodial interrogation was not required.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; accused released on bail upon arrest with a bond of Rs. 10,000/= and one surety under seven specific conditions.

Dhulaji Nanaji Thakor Vs State of Gujarat — Cheque Dishonour | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

R/CR.MA/24254/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 24254 of 2018

¶4

=======================================================

¶5

DHULAJI NANAJI THAKOR

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

=======================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR RR MARSHAL, Sr. Adv. with MR.D K.PUJ(3836) for the
PETITIONER(s) No. 1

¶11

MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR KP RAVAL APP(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶12

=======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶14

Date : 14/02/2019

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

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 connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I– 353/2018 registered with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offenses punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Marshal appearing for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice.

¶18

3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Marshal appearing for the applicant submitted that only allegation

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

R/CR.MA/24254/2018 ORDER

¶21

against the applicant is that the applicant has
identified one Jayaben i.e. the complainant, who
has signed the sale deed, though she was not
present at the time of execution of the sale deed.
It is submitted that other two family members of
the complainant have signed the sale deed. It is
submitted that Babiben i.e. co-accused, who has
signed as Jayaben in the sale deed, is already
released on bail by this Court. Learned counsel
has referred to the said order passed by this
Court. Learned advocate for the applicant on
instructions states that the applicant is ready
and willing to abide by all the conditions. It is,
therefore, urged that considering the above facts,
the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶22

4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Pathak
appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and
learned advocate, Ms. Shah for the original
complainant have opposed grant of anticipatory
bail looking to the nature and gravity of the
offence. It is submitted that the thumb impression
of the father of the complainant was also forged
because the father of the complainant was
suffering from cancer and, therefore, he was not
present at the time of execution of the sale deed.
Learned counsel for the complainant pointed out on
the delay aspect that when the signatures were
sent to FSL, concerned Police authority was
waiting for the report of the FSL and, therefore,
FIR was not registered. Learned APP pointed out
from the investigation papers that FSL Report is
received so far as the thumb impression of the

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

R/CR.MA/24254/2018 ORDER

¶25

complainant, Jayaben is concerned, however, report
with regard to the signature of her father is not
yet received. Learned APP has also referred to the
statements of the witnesses, wherein it is stated
that the co-accused, Babubhai, who is purchaser of
the land in question, was present at the time of
execution of the sale deed. It is, therefore,
submitted that there is ample material against the
applicant, which is evident from the investigation
papers and when there are specific allegations
against the applicant, this Court may not exercise
the discretion in favour of the applicant. It is,
therefore, urged that the present petition be
dismissed.

¶26

Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶27

6. This Court has considered following aspects,

¶28

(a) admittedly, the sale deed is executed in the year 2004;

¶29

(b) revenue proceedings are pending before the revenue authorities since 2011;

¶30

(c)the complainant has specifically admitted
in the complaint itself that she came to
know about such transaction in the year
2012, however, FIR is filed in the month
of November, 2018. It is revealed from the

¶31

FIR that the complainant herself has

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

R/CR.MA/24254/2018 ORDER

¶34

stated that she has given written
complaint on 19.11.2017. Thus there is
gross delay in filing the aforesaid FIR;

¶35

(d)only role attributed to the applicant
herein is that he has identified one of
the sellers, however, the co-accused, who
has signed the sale deed, is released by
this Court on anticipatory bail;

¶36

(e) the case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence and the sale deed is already recovered by the IO.

¶37

Therefore in view of the above facts, the
custodial interrogation of the applicant is not
required.

¶38

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., 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 665 .

¶39

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. I–353/2018 registered with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad City on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions:

¶40

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

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

R/CR.MA/24254/2018 ORDER

¶43

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 21.02.2019 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

¶44

(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;

¶45

(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;

¶46

(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;

¶47

(f) shall 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

¶48

(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;

¶49

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

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

R/CR.MA/24254/2018 ORDER

¶52

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.

¶53

10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

¶54

11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

¶55

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)

¶56

Gautam

¶57

Page 6 of 6

Dhulaji Nanaji Thakor v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhulaji Nanaji Thakor v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrasinh Jawanji Thakor Vs State of Gujarat

Mihir Bhupendrabhai Rao Vs State of Gujarat

Bharat Dhanjibhai Kathiriya Vs State of Gujarat

Masungbhai Uamabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Sadikbhai Safimohmad Vhora Vs State of Gujarat

Harsh Ganpati Infracon Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized Signatory Vs M/S Zeus Engitech Pvt. Ltd.