Maheshbhai Meghjibhai Keraliya vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval on behalf of the respondent-State.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

By way of this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant – original accused prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.- 11208051220918 of 2022 registered with Rajkot ‘B’ Division Police Station on 13.03.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Advocate Mr. Dagli for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

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 would further submit 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 Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, following aspects are considered by this Court:

[1] That the complainant had voluntarily joined partnership firm, along with the other accused and whereas the complainant had invested certain amounts in the partnership firm.

[2] The allegation of the complainant being that when he had asked for return of the amount, some of the accused had given evasive answers and whereas the accused had also given a cheque of the amount in question which later on got dishonoured.

[3] It appears that the transaction between parties was a commercial transaction and whereas the parties i.e. the complainant and accused being closely related with each other, the complainant had entered into commercial transaction out of his free will.

[4] Prima facie there are no averments for supporting allegations of offence punishable under Section 406 and or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Having regard to the circumstances in question, and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

Learned Advocates for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.

In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR No.-11208051220918 of 2022 registered with Rajkot ‘B’ Division Police Station, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions:

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

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 09.06.2022 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

(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;

(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;

(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 or till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if having passports shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week.

Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. 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.

At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.