Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/989620/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9896 of 2008
==================================================
DAMJIBHAI
SHAMJIBHAI SANGANI - Applicant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent
==================================================Appearance
:
MR HRIDAY BUCH for the
Applicant.
MR HL JANI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent.
==================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 14/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. RULE.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H. L. Jani waives service
of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. This
is an application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking regular bail of the petitioner in connection with
FIR registered as C.R. bearing No. 292 of 2008 filed at Pradyuman
Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
420, 511 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned
Advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420, 511 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is
submitted by the learned Advocate that the FIR has been lodged by
Jitendragiri Keshavgiri Goswami. It is alleged in the FIR that the
informant had visited the Circuit House. The informant was also
requested to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and become a member of the
Association. However, the informant came to know about the cheating
and also came to know about another complaint lodged by Dr.
Rajendrabhai Balvantbhai Trivedi and, therefore, he also lodged the
complaint against the petitioner as well as co-accused Viragbhai.
The petitioner came to be arrested in connection with the present
offences on 01-07-2008 and since then he is in custody. The learned
Advocate submitted that on perusal of FIR, prima facie involvement of
the petitioner is not indicated and even the petitioner has been
cheated in that regard, but unfortunately, no complaint is filed by
the petitioner. The learned Advocate submitted that even provisions
of Section 420 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of
the present case. The petitioner is an agriculturist and since he
himself is a victim of the fraud, he may not be kept in the jail for
an indefinite period and, therefore, the prayer is made in the
petition to enlarge him on bail.
4. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H. L. Jani submitted that
the petitioner is involved in the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420, 511 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. He
posed himself as an officer of the Government and booked a room in
the Circuit House and also mentioned in the Register that he was on
duty on 22-06-2008. Thus, the petitioner along with the co-accused
has impersonated himself as a Government Officer and gave false
promise to the complainant. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the petitioner is also involved in a larger conspiracy
along with other accused persons and, therefore, the petition
preferred by the petitioner does not call for any interference and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. I
have heard learned Advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H. L. Jani for the
respondent-State. The averments made in the petitioner as well as
the FIR, which is produced along with the petition, filed by
Jitendragiri Keshavgiri Goswami is carefully perused by me. I have
also considered the gravity of the offences and the quantum of
punishment offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 511 and 114
of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The
petitioner is booked for the offences punishable offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420, 511 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In
related offences, the petitioner posed himself as a Government
Officer and even in the Register of the Circuit House at Rajkot made
an entry in that regard as if he is the Vice-Chairman, Legal Cell,
Gandhinagar and in another column, it has been mentioned that he was
on duty on 22-06-2008. It has been strenuously contended by the
learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is himself a
victim of fraud committed on him. As on today, no complaint is
lodged by the petitioner in that regard. The petitioner has along
with other accused person cheated the complainant and, therefore,
prima facie he is involved in the commission of offences punishable
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 511 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code. It appears from the record of the case that he is
also involved along with other co-accused persons in a larger
conspiracy and with a view to extort money from innocent persons, has
entered into conspiracy with the other accused persons and cheated
them by giving false promises. While rejecting the application of
the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge has observed in the order
dated 09-07-2008 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos.
654, 655, 659 and 661 of 2008 that there are four other cases pending
against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is in the habit
of indulging in such type of offences with impunity. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, no lenient view can be taken in the
matter and the petition does not call for any interference and the
same is liable to be dismissed. However, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the quantum of punishment offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 511 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, the trial is expedited.
7. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule
discharged.
[H.
B. ANTANI, J.]
/shamnath
Top