CR.MA/23114/2023 of PATEL DINESHBHAI JAGJEEVANBHAI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 22 December 2023

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives serviceof notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. By way of the present application under Section 438 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicantsaccused have prayed to release them on anticipatory bailin connection with the F.I.R. No.11204025230734 of2023 registered with Kheda Town Police Station,District Kheda.the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicantsaccused have prayed to release them on anticipatory bailin connection with the F.I.R. No.11204025230734 of2023 registered with Kheda Town Police Station,District Kheda.

3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits thatthenature of allegations are such for which custodialinterrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, theapplicants are available during the course ofinvestigation and will not flee from justice. In view of thenature of allegations are such for which custodialinterrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, theapplicants are available during the course ofinvestigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

3.1Learned advocate for the applicants on instructionsstates that the applicants are ready and willing to abideby all the conditions including imposition of conditionswith regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file anapplication before the competent Court for theirremand. He would further submit that upon filing ofsuch application by the Investigating Agency, the rightof applicants accused to oppose such application onmerits may be kept open.states that the applicants are ready and willing to abideby all the conditions including imposition of conditionswith regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file anapplication before the competent Court for theirremand. He would further submit that upon filing ofsuch application by the Investigating Agency, the rightof applicants accused to oppose such application onmerits may be kept open.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing onbehalf of the respondent-State opposes grant ofanticipatory bail contending that the applicants weremembers of committee who was supposed to verify therecord before sanctioning various loans and beingmembers of the committee, they had played active rolein commission of alleged offence in question. He,therefore, submits that the present application may bedismissed looking to the nature and gravity of theoffence.behalf of the respondent-State opposes grant ofanticipatory bail contending that the applicants weremembers of committee who was supposed to verify therecord before sanctioning various loans and beingmembers of the committee, they had played active rolein commission of alleged offence in question. He,therefore, submits that the present application may bedismissed looking to the nature and gravity of theoffence.

5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties andperused the material available on record.perused the material available on record.

5.1It appears from the record that the alleged incident hadtaken place between 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2022 and thepresent FIR has been lodged on 04.12.2023 belatedlytaken place between 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2022 and thepresent FIR has been lodged on 04.12.2023 belatedly almost after a period of more than nine months. As perthe case of the prosecution, the audit was undertaken inthe year 2022 and the entire fraud came before. So faras delay in lodging FIR is concerned, no explanation iscoming forth. Moreover, in the FIR itself, it is stated thatthe co-accused, who was the Chairman of the Societyhad siphoned away the entire amount and had used it forhis personal consumption. Taking into consideration thefacts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity ofoffences, role attributed to the accused, this Court isinclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. ThisCourt has also taken into consideration the law laiddown by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ofSiddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State ofMaharashtra and Ors. as reported at [2011] 1 SCC6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated thelaw laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case ofShri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., as reported at(1980) 2 SCC 665.

6. In the result, the present application is allowed bydirecting that in the event of applicants herein beingarrested pursuant to aforesaid FIR, the applicants shallbe released on bail on furnishing a personal bond ofRs.10,000/- (EACH) with one surety of like amount onthe following conditions:

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on29.12.2023 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;29.12.2023 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make anyinducement, threat or promise to any personacquainted with the fact of the case so as todissuade from disclosing such facts to the court orto any police officer;inducement, threat or promise to any personacquainted with the fact of the case so as todissuade from disclosing such facts to the court orto any police officer; (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the policeinvestigation and not to play mischief with theevidence collected or yet to be collected by thepolice; investigation and not to play mischief with theevidence collected or yet to be collected by thepolice; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish theaddress to the investigating officer and the courtconcerned and shall not change residence till thefinal disposal of the case till further orders;address to the investigating officer and the courtconcerned and shall not change residence till thefinal disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of theCourt and if having passport shall deposit the samebefore the Trial Court within a week; andCourt and if having passport shall deposit the samebefore the Trial Court within a week; and (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to filean application for remand if considers it proper andjust and the learned Magistrate would decide it onmerits;an application for remand if considers it proper andjust and the learned Magistrate would decide it onmerits;

7. Despite this order, it would be open for the InvestigatingAgency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for policeremand of the applicants. The applicants shall remainpresent before the learned Magistrate on the first dateof hearing of such application and on all subsequentoccasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate.This would be sufficient to treat the accused in thejudicial custody for the purpose of entertainingapplication of the prosecution for police remand. This is,however, without prejudice to the right of the accused toseek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately,granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate toconsider such a request in accordance with law. It isclarified that the applicants, even if, remanded to thepolice custody, upon completion of such period of policeremand, shall be set free immediately, subject to otherconditions of this anticipatory bail order.Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for policeremand of the applicants. The applicants shall remainpresent before the learned Magistrate on the first dateof hearing of such application and on all subsequentoccasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate.This would be sufficient to treat the accused in thejudicial custody for the purpose of entertainingapplication of the prosecution for police remand. This is,however, without prejudice to the right of the accused toseek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately,granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate toconsider such a request in accordance with law. It isclarified that the applicants, even if, remanded to thepolice custody, upon completion of such period of policeremand, shall be set free immediately, subject to otherconditions of this anticipatory bail order.

8. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by theprima facie observations made by this Court whileenlarging the applicants on bail.prima facie observations made by this Court whileenlarging the applicants on bail.

9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service ispermitted.Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service ispermitted.

NABILA

(M. R. MENGDEY,J)