CR.MA/16858/2008 of VIRJIBHAI KESHAVBHAI THUMMAR Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 30 December 2008

Issues

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned APP Mr.S.P.Hasurkar waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present application has been filed under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the offence being CR No.I-56 of 2008 registered at Deesa Malia Hatina Police Station, Junagadh for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 420 and 114 of IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant filed a written complaint before the PSI of Malia Hatina Police Station alleging that the Trustees of “Shri Saurashtra Kishan Vikas Trust” (for short, the “Trust”) alleging that the Trustees of the said Trust had advertised different schemes for the farmers in the local area. It is also alleged that the present applicant has also made declaration that the Trust would give 75% subsidy to the farmers for the levelling of the land. Further it is alleged by the complainant that he had taken the Form of subsidy from the office of the Trust and at that point of time, the Trustees, i.e. (accused Nos.2 to 12) had assured him that the levelling work would be completed and the complainant would be given subsidy and accordingly, relying their assurance of accused Nos.2 to 12, the complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- to the Trust on 10.12.2007. But as the levelling work was not completed, the complainant contacted the office of the Trust time and again, however, the work was not done and ultimately, the complainant came to know about the closure of the Trust through daily newspaper on 12.10.2008 and hence, he filed the complaint as aforesaid.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mehul Rathod appearing for the applicant. He has contended that due to political rivalry, the said complaint has been filed. It is further contended by him that the the applicant was never called for any interrogation by any authority and just to settle the score of political rivalry and for maligning the image and reputation of the applicant, he has been falsely involved in the alleged offence keeping in mind the forthcoming Lok Sabha election.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Mehul Rathod has further contended that on 10.12.2008, an application was filed by the application for anticipatory bail being Criminal Misc.Application No. 387 of 2008 before the Court of Joint District & Sessions Judge, Junagadh at Veraval. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, FTC No.3, Veraval vide his order dated 20.12.2008 rejected the said application.

6. It is further contended by the learned advocate for the applicant that he is not a Trustee and he has not got any connection with the Trust and yet he has been booked. According to learned advocate for the applicant, the learned Judge has, without application of mind, has passed the order rejecting his application for anticipatory bail on the alleged ground that he was indirectly getting assistance and the Trust was getting grant for subsidy and therefore, prima facie involvement of the applicant is to be believed. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant was in any way connected with the Trust. However, the learned Judge has prima facie found his involvement and therefore, wrongly passed the impugned order of rejection of his anticipatory bail application.

7. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that he has deep root in the society and social ties in Amreli and nearby areas and also has movable and immovable properties and therefore, there is no chance of his being misusing the liberty. He has further submitted that he has not at all been involved in any offence as alleged. Therefore, according to the submission of learned advocate Mr.Rathod, this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in the event of his arrest.

8. Today, this application is listed for hearing. Learned APP Mr.S.P.Hasurkar has contended that the complainant has explained in detail the allegations against the applicant in the FIR itself which shows that the applicant has accepted Rs.50,000/- from the complainant in the name of the Trust and no receipt is given. He has also contended that the applicant has also made a public statement with regard to the subsidy to be given to the farmers and also no work as assured has been done.

9. I have gone through the application as well as heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties. I have also perused the documents produced before the Court as well as the public advertisement issued in connection with the alleged scheme. It appears that due the said assurance given by the applicant, the complainant was tempted to join in the camp and gave the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Trust and he was awaiting the subsidy, but it was not afforded to him and the work of levelling the land was not done even after accepting the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant by the Trust. I have also perused the provisions of Sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code which attract the alleged activity of the applicant. From the contentions of the FIR it appears that temptation was given to the complainant and the present applicant is prima facie responsible and the declaration regarding subsidy, the present applicant has deposited Rs.50,000/- with the Trust. I have also perused the provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and prima facie it appears that the Trust has closed its office and has not done the work of levelling of the land and thereby cheated the complainant and it appears that the amount collected for the said purpose has been misused by the Trustees. On perusal of Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, it appears that the applicant has no power to give any subsidy to the Trust. I find that there is nothing on record to show that the applicant or the Trust has any power to collect money in violation of the provisions of law.

temptation given by the applicant with regard to the subsidy amount as was to be given under the alleged scheme, he has deposited the amount. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge has considered this case properly and no lenient view has been taken as the case is prima facie established against the applicant even though he is an M.P. and if anticipatory bail is granted, it would give a wrong signal to the society as a whole.

11. With the above observations and directions, this application deserves to be rejected and it is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.

Sreeram.