Allowed

Tusharbhai Jamnadasbhai Koradiya (Patel) v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC27 Jan 2021CR.MA/19511/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat allowed an application under Section 439 CrPC for regular bail. The court granted bail considering the filing of the charge-sheet, reliance on documentary evidence, and lack of need for custodial interrogation, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on regular bail with personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each and one local surety, subject to strict conditions including appearance before police, passport surrender, and movement restrictions.

Tusharbhai Jamnadasbhai Koradiya (Patel) Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

R/CR.MA/19511/2020 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19511 of 2020

¶4

========================================================== TUSHARBHAI JAMNADASBHAI KORADIYA (PATEL)

¶5

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶6

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

¶7

Appearance:

¶8

MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MS. SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent State. MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

¶11

Date : 27/01/2021

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

[1] Heard Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State and Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocate for the original complainant through Video Conferencing.

¶14

[2] The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.I –15/2019 registered with Gir-Gadhda Police Station, District: Gir Somnath for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

[3] Learned advocate appearing for the applicants submits that there is a delay in filing of the FIR. He has also submitted that now the chargesheet has been filed and there is no need of custodial interrogation and the entire

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

R/CR.MA/19511/2020 ORDER

¶18

case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. According to him, out of two persons, one person has filed a private complaint, which was came to be rejected by the concerned trial Court and revision filed against that order has also been dismissed by the concerned revisional Court and the matter has not been carried further. Mr. Dagli has further submitted that there are Civil Suits filed and the entire case is pertaining to civil dispute. He has also submitted that the Registrar before whom the document was executed has clearly stated in his statement that the seller has accepted before him money has been paid . He has referred to the learned advocate who has prepared the documents wherein he has stated that he has prepared the documents but has shown his ignorance regarding the payment of money to the seller. He has further submitted that considering the fact that the entire case is bases on documentary evidence and civil litigation is going on, this application for bail may kindly be considered and the applicants may be released on bail on stringent conditions.

¶19

[4] Per contra, Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondentState has opposed grant of regular bail on the grounds that the agreement to sell without possession was executed between the parties for 22 bighas of land and the value of the same is more than Rs. 3 Crores and not a single penny has been paid by the applicants herein. She has also submitted that due to persistence of the applicants, the

¶20

Page 2 of 7

¶21

R/CR.MA/19511/2020 ORDER

¶22

complainant has asserted before the Registrar that he has received the money, in fact the complainant has not received any amount from the applicants. According to her, since amount involved is more than Rs. 3 Crores. the applicants have tried to create hindrance in the ownership of the original complainant. She has prayed to dismiss the application at this stage.

¶23

[5] Mr. Rathin Raval, learned advocate for the complainant has also vehemently submitted that as per the reply filed by the original complainant, they were not at fault because they have already filed complaint for registration of FIR but as the same was not filed by the concerned Police, the original complainant had to move to the High Court and after the order being passed by the High Court, the FIR came to be registered by the Police. He has submitted that there was no inaction on the part of the original complainant but since the Police has not registered the FIR, no delay could be assigned to the complainant. He has submitted that the applicants are head-strong persons which has resulted in not filing of the FIR instantly. He has submitted that huge chunk of land is involved and the conduct of the applicants is also to be considered to the fact that they were not available for 16 months after registration of the FIR and they have filed 4 to 5 Civil Suits. He has further submitted that during this period of time, the applicants have not approached the complainant for settlement and rather they have filed different suits. He has

¶24

Page 3 of 7

¶25

R/CR.MA/19511/2020 ORDER

¶26

also submitted that considering the amount involved in the transaction and the conduct of the applicants, the application may be rejected so that the applicants approach the complainant for settlement.

¶27

[6] Having heard the learned advocates for the parties coupled with the documentary evidence produced on record, it reveals that now the charge-sheet has been filed and the entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence. It also appears that there is some substance in the submission of the complainant that the FIR was not registered on time by the Police authority. Of course, at the same time, it reveals from the record that other person had filed private complaint before the subordinate Court wherein it was rejected and it was carried out to the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court has also dismissed the same. Now considering the material on record and the fact that chargesheet has been filed and the entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicants.

¶28

[7] This Court has considered following aspects;

¶29

(i) That the Applicants are in jail since 23.7.2020;

¶30

(ii) that charge-sheet has been filed;

¶31

(iii) that the entire case is based on documentary evidence;

¶32

(iv) that there is no need of custodial interrogation;

¶33

(v) the accused are not likely to flee away from the justice

¶34

Page 4 of 7

¶35

R/CR.MA/19511/2020 ORDER

¶36

and will be available during the trial;

¶37

(vi) that the assurance given by the applicants to abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court; (vii) that is it settled that Rule is law and jail is exception.

¶38

[8] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 ;

¶39

[9] In the result, the present application is allowed and the applicants are ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.I –15/2019 registered with Gir-Gadhda Police Station, District: Gir Somnath , on executing a personal bond of Rs.25 ,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands Only) each with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to the conditions that they shall;

¶40

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

¶41

[b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution;

¶42

[c] surrender their passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

¶43

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court;

¶44

[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on

¶45

Page 5 of 7

¶46

R/CR.MA/19511/2020 ORDER

¶47

alternate every Monday for initial six months and thereafter, on alternate Monday of every English calendar month, for a period of six months, between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

¶48

[f] furnish latest 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 the Trial Court;

¶49

[10] The Authorities will release the applicants only if they are not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned Trial Court will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial 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. At the trial, learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicants on bail. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶50

[11] Registry is directed to intimate about this order to the concerned authorities through fax, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode. Learned advocate for the applicants is also permitted to intimate about this order to

¶51

Page 6 of 7

¶52

R/CR.MA/19511/2020 ORDER

¶53

the concerned authorities through fax, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.

¶54

(DR. A. P. THAKER, J)

¶55

SAJ GEORGE

¶56

Page 7 of 7

Tusharbhai Jamnadasbhai Koradiya (Patel) v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tusharbhai Jamnadasbhai Koradiya (Patel) 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

Patel Kashiben Wd/O Ramabhai Chaganlal Thro'Her Heirs Vs Bank of Baroda

Uday Builders Vs Gujarat Industrial Developmentcorporation

Interlink Petroleum Ltd. Vs Vinayakrao S Desai

Cema Electric Lighting Products India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhaven T.Patel

Cema Electric Lighting Products India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bhaven T Patel

Bhupatsinh Harisinghbhai Virsodiya Vs Commissioner