Allowed

Parmar Velabhai Karamsibhai v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC8 Feb 2019CR.MA/804/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat granted anticipatory bail to the applicant accused of offences under IPC Sections 465, 468, 471, and 114. The Court noted no loss to the finance company, the applicant's name was not in the FIR, and co-accused were released. Bail was subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail upon arrest; executed personal bond Rs. 10,000/- with one surety; specific conditions imposed.

Parmar Velabhai Karamsibhai Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

R/CR.MA/804/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 804 of 2019

¶4

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

¶5

PARMAR VELABHAI KARAMSIBHAI

¶6

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

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

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MR RB THAKOR(6743) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI Date : 08/02/2019 ORAL ORDER

¶12

1. 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– 40 of 2018 registered with Thara Police Station, District Banaskantha , for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

2. 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.

¶14

3. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

R/CR.MA/804/2019 ORDER

¶17

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.

¶18

4.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed
this application and pointed out that the
applicant has accompanied the other co-accused
at the time of getting delivery of the tractor.
In the delivery note, he has signed as witness.
She has further pointed out that when the Field
Officer visited the agriculture farm of the
concerned person, who has submitted an
application for obtaining the loan i.e.
Thakursinh Hiraji, the applicant has identified
the said person. However, Thakursinh Hiraji had
already expired at the time of said incident
and, therefore, he has wrongly identified some
other person as Thakursinh Hiraji. It is,
therefore, urged that from the role played by
the applicant in the incident in question, this
Court may not exercise discretion in his favour.

¶19

5.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

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

R/CR.MA/804/2019 ORDER

¶22

offence, role attributed to the accused, without
discussing the evidence in detail, at this
stage, this Court is inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶23

6.This Court has also considered the following
aspects:

¶24

(i)name of the applicant is not reflected in
the FIR;

¶25

(ii) it is observed by the Sessions Court in
the order while rejecting the anticipatory bail
application of the present applicant that loan
papers are not prepared by the present
applicant;

¶26

(iii)learned advocate for the applicant has
produced on record the order dated 27.09.2018
passed by the Sessions Court in the case of co-
accused Goswami Kiritkumar Ashokbharthi. From
the said order, it is revealed that the Sessions
Court has specifically observed that person, who
has obtained loan, namely, Bhudarji Chelaji
Vaghela and Chhaganji Mafaji Vaghela, have
handed over the possession of the tractor to the
concerned Agency and the said Agency had already
paid the amount to the Finance Company and,
therefore, no loss is caused to the Finance
Company. After making aforesaid observations,
the Sessions Court has released the co-accused
on anticipatory bail;

¶27

(iv)thus, from the aforesaid observation, it

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

R/CR.MA/804/2019 ORDER

¶30

has emerged that no loss is caused to even
Finance Company or the Agency of the tractor;
and

¶31

(iv)case of the prosecution rests on
documentary evidence.

¶32

7.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. as 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, as reported at
(1980) 2 SCC 665.

¶33

8.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–40 of 2018 registered
with Thara Police Station, District Banaskantha,
on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of
like amount on the following conditions:

¶34

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

¶35

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 15.02.2019 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

¶36

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

R/CR.MA/804/2019 ORDER

¶39

to dissuade him from disclosing such facts
to the court or to any police officer;

¶40

(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;

¶41

(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;

¶42

(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

¶43

(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;

¶44

9.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

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

R/CR.MA/804/2019 ORDER

¶47

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.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶51

piyush

¶52

Page 6 of 6

Parmar Velabhai Karamsibhai v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmar Velabhai Karamsibhai 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

Vajubhai Bhikhabhai Khuntad Vs State of Gujarat

Thakor Pravinji Chamanji Vs State of Gujarat

Akhalak Ahmed Nizamali Bukhari Vs Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal

Govind Rameshchandra Paragi Vs State of Gujarat

Jaydeep Dinesh Parmar Vs State of Gujarat

Rasiklal Somdas Patel Vs State of Gujarat