AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Samir J. Dave, J
The present successive bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.11191011220126 OF 2022 registered with DCB Police Station, District: Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Learned advocate for the applicant submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. That, earlier the applicant has approached this court by way of Criminal Misc. Application R/CR.MA/1622/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2023 No. 21338 of 2022with a request to release him on bail but vide order dated 23.11.2022, he was permitted to withdraw such application with a liberty approach competent court after filing of the charge sheet. That, investigation of the present offence has been completed and the investigating officer has filed charge sheet against the present applicant. That, no any incriminating material whatsoever nature disclosed during the course of investigation against the applicant. On the other hand, the wife of the applicant is pregnant and is expecting a child and there is none to take care of her as the applicant has a 7 years old daughter and the motor of the applicant was passed away in the year 2019 whereas the mother in law of the applicant is suffering from cancer and is undergoing treatment. Thus, presence of the applicant is necessary to take care of his wife.
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that there is no material in the charge sheet to connect the applicant with the receipt of any money as is alleged nor any amount has been recovered from the applicant during the course of investigation nor any trail of money is found or tracked by the Investigating Officer. That, other co-accused having identical situation are enlarged on bail and there being not reported antecedents against the applicant.
Ultimately, it was requested by learned advocate for the applicant to allow present application.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. That, the applicant is involved in the serious offence as alleged and therefore, no leniency view would be taken in favour of the applicant while releasing him on bail. That, applicant is the main accused being Director of the Office and co-accused who have been released on bail are working under him and therefore, the benefit of parity cannot be given to the applicant as his role is graver than other co-accused. Ultimately, it was submitted by learned APP for the respondent-State to reject present application.
Having heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State as well as papers produced on record, it appears that earlier the applicant has approached this court by way of Criminal Misc. Application No. 21338 of 2022with a request to release him on bail but vide order dated 23.11.2022, he was permitted to withdraw such application with a liberty approach competent court after filing of the charge sheet. It appears that the investigation is over against the present applicant and charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating officer against the present applicant and after filing of the charge sheet, applicant approached the learned Sessions Court with a request to release him on regular bail but such request was rejected and therefore, applicant approached this court.
While considering the observations made by learned Sessions Court at the time of rejecting the bail application of the applicant, it appears that the applicant was the Director of the company and the allegation is relating to RS. 73,55,040/- (91938 dollars). Learned Sessions Court has clearly observed that the applicant is the main culprit in the offence and has played a vital role in the offence and therefore, his request for granting bail was rejected.
While considering the facts of the case and papers available on record, it appears that at the time of granting bail to the accused the court has to consider all the aspects like gravity of offence, role played by the accused and in the present case, as discussed above, it appears that the applicant is involved in the serious offence and has also played a main role in commission of offence and therefore, on the aspect of gravity of offence and role played by the applicant, request of the applicant liable to be rejected.
Not only that, at the time of deciding bail application, the court should have to consider the social impact also and as in the present case the applicant was the Director and is involved in the transaction of RS. 73,55,040/- (91938 dollars) and thus, this court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the applicant.
Accordingly, present application stands rejected. Rule stands discharged.