AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Supehia, J
[1] Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing.
[2] RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent â€" State.
[3] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in
connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11202009201601 of 2020 registered with City “B†Division Police Station, District Jamnagar for the
offences under Sections 13, 16, 17, 19, 23(1)(b),(c),(e) and (f) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (“the Actâ€) as well as Sections
406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“ the IPCâ€).
[4] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is
not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, as well as trial also and will not flee
from justice. He further submits that the FIR has been registered against eleven (11) persons and out of them four co-accused have already been
granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in respective applications being Criminal Misc. Application No.18094 of 2020 (accused No. 8)
dated 02.12.2020, Criminal Misc. Application No.18161 of 2020 (accused No.6) dated 03.12.2020, Criminal Misc. Application No.18096 of 2020
(accused No. 7) dated 03.12.2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No.18093 of 2020 (accused No.9) dated 09.12.2020. He has further submitted that
the proceedings pursuant to the present FIR would be sheer abuse of process of law and court in view of specific bar contained in Section 26 of the
Act, which provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a complaint made by the Central
Government/State Government/SEBI or recognized stock exchange or by any persons. He has also submitted that the applicant is implicated in the
crime in question merely on assumption and presumption by relying upon some alleged code-word. He has submitted that the application was not even
present at the scene of offence or he has nothing to do with the main accused persons. He has further submitted that though the role of the accused
persons having graver than the present applicant, they have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court.
[5] 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 submits that
upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.
Learned advocate, therefore, submits that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
[6] On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondentâ€" State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail
looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
[7] Having heard 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.
[8] This Court has considered following aspects;
(a) Prima facie it appears that the applicant was not present at the place of incident;
(b) Co-accused persons have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court;
(c) that the applicant is implicated in the crime in question merely on assumption and presumption by relying upon some alleged code-word;
Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant.
[9] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi) , AIR
2020 SC 831.
[10] 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 FIR
being C.R.No.11202009201601 of 2020 registered with City “B†Division Police Station, District Jamnagar on his executing a personal bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that he:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 23.12.2020 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 till further orders;
(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
(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 it on merits;
[11] Despite this order, it would be open for the investigating agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The
applicant shall remain present before the concerned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may
be directed by the concerned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the
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 concerned 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.
[12] At the trial, the concerned trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
[13] The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
[14] Registry is directed to intimate the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court about the present order by sending a copy of this
order through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.
[15] Learned advocate for the applicant is also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned jail authority and the concerned Sessions Court
through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.