Allowed

Amrutlal Pyarchand Mehta v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC10 Jul 2019CR.MA/7204/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC regarding a fraud case. Considering factors like gross FIR delay and pendency of civil suits, the applicant was released on bail subject to specific conditions including a security deposit and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail in event of arrest on executing personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of like amount under specified conditions.

Amrutlal Pyarchand Mehta Vs State of Gujarat — Anticipatory Bail | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

R/CR.MA/7204/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 7204 of 2019

¶4

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

¶5

AMRUTLAL PYARCHAND MEHTA

¶6

Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

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

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR HARDIK A DAVE(3764) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AMIT V THAKKAR FOR MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the
Respondent(s) No. 2

¶10

MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶13

Date : 10/07/2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

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 – 272 of 2018 registered with Ankleshwar City Police Station, District Bharuch for the offenses punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of IPC.

¶16

Learned advocate 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.

¶17

3. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

R/CR.MA/7204/2019 ORDER

¶20

ready and willing to abide by all the
conditions including imposition of conditions
with regard to powers of Investigating Agency
to file an application before the competent
Court for his remand. He further submit that
upon filing of such application by the
Investigating Agency, the right of applicant
accused to oppose such application on merits
may be kept open. Learned advocate,
therefore, submitted that considering the
above facts, the applicant may be granted
anticipatory bail.

¶21

4.LearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent – State
has opposed grant of anticipatory bail
looking to the nature and gravity of the
offence.

¶22

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.

¶23

6. This Court has considered the following aspects:

¶24

(a)it is contended by learned advocate for
the applicant that for the incident which has

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

R/CR.MA/7204/2019 ORDER

¶27

taken place during the period between March
2013 to January 2017, FIR in question is
filed on 04.11.2018. Thus, there is gross
delay in lodging the FIR.

¶28

(b)It is also contended that before lodging
the FIR in question, civil suits are filed
for specific performance with regard to
subject land. Said proceedings are still
pending, however the complainant has
suppressed the said fact while filing the
FIR. It is, therefore, urged that this Court
may consider the case of the applicant.
(c)It is also contended that original
accused Nos.1 and 2 are enlarged on regular
bail by the concerned Sessions Court.
(d) it is further submitted that today also
this Court has released one of the co-accused
i.e. original accused No.5 – Laxman Babusinh
Rathod on anticipatory bail.
(e)Learned advocate for the applicant,
under the instructions, submitted that
applicant is ready and willing to deposit
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) within a
period of five months before the concerned
trial Court without prejudice to his rights
and contentions.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid submissions
canvassed by learned advocate for the
applicant and in the aforesaid facts and

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

R/CR.MA/7204/2019 ORDER

¶32

circumstances of the present case, I am
inclined to consider the case of the
applicant.

¶33

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 565 .

¶34

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 – 272 of 2018 registered with Ankleshwar City Police Station, District Bharuch on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that he:

¶35

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

¶36

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 17.07.2019 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

¶37

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

R/CR.MA/7204/2019 ORDER

¶40

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;

¶41

(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;

¶42

(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;

¶43

(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

¶44

(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;

¶45

(h) shall file an undertaking before the trial Court within a period of one week from today to the effect that he will deposit Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) before the trial Court within a period of five months from the date of passing of this order.

¶46

(i)shall abide by the aforesaid undertaking.

¶47

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of

¶48

Page 5 of 6

¶49

R/CR.MA/7204/2019 ORDER

¶50

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.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶54

Jani

¶55

Page 6 of 6

Amrutlal Pyarchand Mehta v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrutlal Pyarchand Mehta 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

Mithulal Lakhamanlal Jant Vs State of Gujarat

Dilipbhai Jethabhai Sinhpara Vs State of Gujarat

Batukbhai Rajabhai Mathasuriya Vs State of Gujarat

Dashrathsinh Maya S/O Arjunsinh Maya Vs State of Gujarat

Sanjeevkumar Kailasprasad Agrawal Vs State of Gujarat

Jummakhan @ Pandit Rasulkhan Pathan Vs State of Gujarat