Farishma @ Karishmaben Ahmadbhai Bumbiya vs State Of Gujarat

A.Y. Kogje, J

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with FIR

registered as C.R. No.IÂ11208056200855 of 2020 with THORALA POLICE STATION, DISTRICTÂRAJKOT CITY, for the offence punishable

under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under SectionÂ​3, 4 of Gujarat Protection of Interest of Investors Act.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail

by imposing suitable conditions.

Learned Advocate Mr. S. D. Mansuri is appearing for the original complainant. He strongly objects to the grant of Regular bail to the applicant

and submits that though the applicant claims that husband is running an affair, but the applicant is also equally involved.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentÂState has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the

nature and gravity of the offence.

Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for a further reasoned order.

I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers.

Following aspects are considered :Â​

I) The F.I.R. is registered on 22Â​06Â​2020 for the offence which is alleged to have taken place between 13Â​05Â​2008 to 13Â​05Â​2020;

III) Investigation is concluded and chargeÂ​sheet is filed;

IV) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a lady accused and the entire transaction according to the learned Advocate

for the applicant, was being handled by the husband of the applicant who is in jail.

V) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that since the Credit Society and the Scheme of the Society was operational since the year 2008 and

in the year 2014, the same was registered and thereafter, there onwards, accounts of the Society has been audited regularly and nothing has been

reported.

VI) Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that it was only on account of the pandemic situation that the Investors did not keep trust and

demanded the refund of the money, which was already in circulation and in most of the cases, the advance being given to the members of the Society

itself, which was not returned and hence, there was break in chain of finance circle, which has resulted into the present situation.

VII) Learned Advocate for the applicant under instruction submitted that since the applicant has been working in the interest of the Investors, the

applicant shall continue to make efforts of recovery of dues of the Credit Society and protect the interest of the Investors by admitting to refund atÂ‐

least the principle amount and file an undertaking to this effect within period of two weeks from the date of her release before the trial Court;

VIII) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor under the instructions of the Investigating Officer is unable to bring on record any special circumstances

against the applicant.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of

Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report,

without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the

applicant on regular bail.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.IÂ11208056200855 of

2020 with THORALA POLICE STATION, DISTRICTÂRAJKOT CITY, on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/= (Rupees Ten Thousand

Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that she shall;

(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & 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;

(c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;

(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;

(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(f) to file an undertaking within period of two weeks from the date of her release before the trial Court that the applicant shall continue to make

efforts of recovery of dues of the Credit Society and protect the interest of the Investors by admitting to refund atÂleast the principle amount, since

the applicant has been working in the interest of the Investors,

(g) furnish the present address of his 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 Trial Court;

The authorities will release the applicant only if she is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the

above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

Bail bond to be executed before the lower 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, the 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 applicant on bail.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.