Allowed

Pratikbhai Rameshbhai Gohil v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC1 Dec 2021CR.MA/5971/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat granted anticipatory bail to the applicant accused facing charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Section 420 and 406 IPC, allowing release on execution of a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail on execution of a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety of like amount on specified conditions.

Pratikbhai Rameshbhai Gohil Vs State of Gujarat — Cheating and Forgery | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

R/CR.MA/5971/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5971 of 2021

¶4

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

¶5

PRATIKBHAI RAMESHBHAI GOHIL

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MAHESHBHAI K BARAD(9121) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR.HITENDRA D RAJPUT(7224) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS. MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

¶13

Date : 01/12/2021

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

Heard learned advocate Mr. Hitendra Rajput for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the Respondent – State.

¶16

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. 11207025200162 of 2020 registered with Godhra ‘A’ Division Police Station, District: Panchmahal for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that the informant was in search of the job and at that time his one relative Dharmishthaben and one other person namely Harishbhai Mehta, the Harishbhai introduced the present applicant to the complainant and also said that in the present applicant’s company need of employees and the said company is giving handsome salary to the employees. That, applicant have taken signature over the ICICI Bank account opening Form. That, the on 7.2.2020 the complainant has received letter from the ICICI Bank, Vadodara and upon inquiry, it is found that on

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

R/CR.MA/5971/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021

¶20

the said letter someone has open the Bank Account and on that basis credit card was issued and transactions of Rs.46,538/- and therefore, the present FIR came to be lodged.

¶21

Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection the aforesaid FIR and in this connection the earlier application filed by the applicant before the learned Sessions Court came to be dis-allowed. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that just to give criminal colour, a false and frivolous complaint is created to pressurize the present applicant. He further submitted that the co-ordinate Bench has issued the rule and directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 1.5 lacs before the learned trial Court and the same Rs.1.5 has been deposited. He also submitted that offence is under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC and there is no antecedent upon the applicant and therefore, the present application may kindly be allowed.

¶22

Learned advocate for the applicant has further argued that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation and trial also and will not flee from justice.

¶23

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 to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submitted 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.

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

R/CR.MA/5971/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021

¶26

Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt appearing on behalf of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, the discretion may not be exercised in favour of the applicant.

¶27

Having heard the arguments advanced by 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.

¶28

This Court has considered following aspects, (a) as per catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court there are mainly two factors which are required to be considered by this court;

¶29

(i) prima facie case (ii) requirement of accused for custodial interrogation.

¶30

(b) The offence is under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC, for which maximum punishment is up to 7 years (c) as per the direction of the co-ordinate Bench, the applicant has deposited Rs.1.5 lacs before the trial Court.

¶31

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is inclined to consider the case of the applicant.

¶32

This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- Anr. reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and 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

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

R/CR.MA/5971/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021

¶35

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 .

¶36

10.1 This court has also considered the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observe that whenever there is punishment of 7 years, then the court would be liberal to exercise the discretion. Further, by exercising the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the doors of remand by the Investigating OfÏcer is open and therefore also this court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶37

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 the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of like amount on the following conditions:

¶38

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

¶39

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 31.12.2021 between 12.00 noon and 2.00 p.m.;

¶40

(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 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

Page 4 of 6

¶43

R/CR.MA/5971/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2021

¶44

(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;

¶45

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week; and

¶46

(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 the remand application without being influenced of the observations made by this Court;

¶47

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.

¶48