Narendrabhai @ Munno Rambhai Bharwad vs State Of Gujarat

J. C. Doshi, J

By way of the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.11191011230016 registered with Ahmedabad City DCB Police Station.

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the petitioner, the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.

Learned advocate for the first informant would submit that the petitioner is involved in notirious business of money lending without any licence. He would further submit that around Rs.92 lakh has been taken up by the complainant from the petitioner on interest and out of which, around Rs.45 lakh is paid by cheque and remaining amount in cash on different dates and thus, it indicates that around Rs.3 crore has been paid, which indicates that the petitioner was charging huge interest. He would further submit that not only that with the intention to grab the land of the complainant, the petitioner has also got executed notarized Banakhat qua disputed land. He would further submit that the petitioner is the person, who is charging huge amount and taking away immovable property of the innocent persons. He would further submit that delay in filing the FIR is sufficiently explained. Not only that, subsequent to the FIR, the petitioner has also given threat to the complainant and therefore, the complainant has filed written complaint. Upon such submission, he requests to dismiss the petition.

3.1 Adopting the submissions of learned advocate for the first informant, 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.

Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers.

Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.

(1) The span of the incident in question is from 1.8.2012 to 1.9.2022 i.e. almost after 10 years and even if the last incident is taken into consideration, the FIR is delayed by 5 months.

(2) Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.918-919 of 2024, the petitioner has approached the concerned investigating officer and pursuant thereof, the investigating officer has recorded the statement of the petitioner also.

(3) The civil dispute has been given cloak of criminality.

(4) Pursuant to the present offence, the petitioner has filed civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and cancellation of sale deed, but no counter claim/suit is filed by the first informant.

(5) The allegation that the petitioner has charged huge interest can be tested during trial.

(6) This Court is persuaded to grant bail to the petitioner on the reason that the petitioner has cooperated with the investigating officer as and when he is called.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.

This Court while exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner has taken into consideration law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 665. This Court has also taken into consideration law laid down in the case of Sushila Agarwal v/s. State (NCT of Delhi [(2020) 5 SCC 1].

In the result, the present petition is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered as C.R.No.11191011230016 registered with Ahmedabad City DCB Police Station, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that the petitioner :

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

(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 28.3.2024, 29.3.2024 and 30.3.2024 between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 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 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;

If breach of any of the above conditions is committed by the petitioner, the concerned learned Judge will be free to take appropriate action in the matter. 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 prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the petitioner on bail.

Direct service is permitted.