Single-judge order granting regular bail to the applicant in a criminal appeal involving cheating, forgery, and cyber offences under IPC and IT Act provisions.
Applicant ordered released on regular bail by executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of like amount and undertaking specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R/CR.MA/5662/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5662 of 2019
=========================================================
=
NIKUNJ SUNIL KANSAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI Date : 08/07/2019 ORAL ORDER
Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.I-16 of 2018 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City for offence under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 114 of IPC and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.
3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the
Page 1 of 4
R/CR.MA/5662/2019 ORDER
offence.
5. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.
6. 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, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
7. This Court has considered the following aspects:
(a) applicant is in jail since 27.09.2018.(b) investigation is concluded and chargesheet is filed.(c) case is triable by Court of Magistrate.(d) co-accused are enlarged on bail by this Court. Learned advocate has referred the orders passed by this Court in case of coaccused.(e) it is further submitted that the role attributed to the applicant is almost similar.In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the present case, I am
inclined to consider the case of the
Page 2 of 4
R/CR.MA/5662/2019 ORDER
applicant.
This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40 .9.Hence, the present application is allowed.
The applicant is ordered to be released on
regular bail in connection with FIR being
C.R.No.I-16 of 2018 registered with DCB
Police Station, Surat City on executing a
personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) with one surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
and subject to the conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;[d]not leave India without prior
permission of the concerned trial
Court;
[e]mark presence before the concerned
Police Station between 1st to 10th day
of every English calendar month for a
period of one year between 11:00 a.m.
Page 3 of 4
R/CR.MA/5662/2019 ORDER
and 2:00 p.m.;
[f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;10. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.
11. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
Jani
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case for regular bail considering the concluded investigation and the gravity of the offences.
Whether the allegations against the applicant warrant the grant of bail given that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶32
[2012] 1 SCC 40 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
NIKUNJ SUNIL KANSAL
STATE OF GUJARAT
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court