Allowed

Mohammad Irfanbhai Sulemanbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC7 Oct 2021CR.MA/15419/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to Mohammad Irfanbhai Sulemanbhai Memon on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in an IPC and Essential Commodities Act case. The court imposed extensive conditions, including mark attendance, cooperation with investigation, and depositing a sum based on alleged fake bills. It clarified the Investigating Officer's right to seek reman

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with surety, mark attendance, deposit of Rs. 26,300 for fake bills, and permission to IO to apply for remand.

Mohammad Irfanbhai Sulemanbhai Memon Vs State of Gujarat — Anticipatory Bail | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

R/CR.MA/15419/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15419 of 2021

¶4

================================================================ MOHAMMAD IRFANBHAI SULEMANBHAI MEMON

¶5

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶6

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

¶7

Appearance:

¶8

MR VISHVAJITSINH D CHAUHAN(10160) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR.KISHAN PRAJAPATI(7074) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

¶11

Date : 07/10/2021

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

This is an application by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR being CR No.11191011210066 of 2021 registered with DCB Police Station (Part-A), Ahmedabad for offence under Sections 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Sections 34, 35 and 37 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidised Benefit and Services) Act, 2016 and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2008.

¶14

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

R/CR.MA/15419/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2021

¶17

On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application and granting anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

¶18

I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the investigation papers and have also taken into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant–accused and without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 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 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665.

¶19

5. Following aspects are also considered:-

¶20

I. The FIR is registered on 26.06.2021 for the offence which is alleged to have taken place on 25.06.2021.

¶21

II. The investigation pertains to functioning of fair price shop, through which grains are sold at subsidized rates to the customers registered with such fair price shops. The investigation is regarding use of software /application by the main accused persons and with the use of such software, preparing fake bills as if against such

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

R/CR.MA/15419/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2021

¶24

fake bills, grains are given to the customers registered with that particular fair price shop, whereas registered customers, in fact, not received such grains. Therefore, apparently gains have been disposed of in open market at higher rates than paid to the Government by fair price shop owners.

¶25

III. The applicant is fair price shop owner and it is argued that there is no wrongful loss to the State Government as a system is developed for running fair price shop where fair price shop owner is required to pay in advance for the delivery of grains requisitioned by him through software programme specially created by the State Government in this regard. However, to show their bonafides to the allegation that fake bills were created containing sale of grains to the respective customers of the fair price shop and it was allegedly disposed of in open market, the applicants are ready and willing to deposit the alleged amount which may be termed as wrongful gain by the applicants.

¶26

IV. Considering the fact that the applicants were protected against their arrest by order dated 02.08.2021, which has continued from time to time.

¶27

V. Learned APP under instructions of IO is unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicants.

¶28

Learned Advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including impositions of conditions with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent court for his remand. He would 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.

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

R/CR.MA/15419/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2021

¶31

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest of the applicant herein in connection with FIR being CR No.11191011210066 of 2021 registered with DCB Police Station (Part-A), Ahmedabad, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) with one surety of the like amount on the following conditions that he shall:

¶32

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

¶33

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 20.10.2021 between 11.00 AM and 02.00 PM;

¶34

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

¶35

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

¶36

(e) shall, at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders without the permission of Trial Court;

¶37

(f) To mark presence once in fifteen days before the concerned Police Station till filing of the chargesheet;

¶38

(g) shall not leave India without the permission of the Trial Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

R/CR.MA/15419/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2021

¶41

(h) 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 the same on merits;

¶42

(i) to deposit the amount as under before the trial Court within 15 days:-

¶43

Sr.	Name of the Applicant	Fake bills	Amount to
No.		generated	be deposited
1.	Mohammad Irfanbhai Sulemanbhai Memon	263	Rs.26,300/-

¶44

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 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.

¶45