Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10804/2010 5/ 5 ORDER
.IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10804 of 2010
=========================================================
SHAMBHUBHAI
RATANSHIBHAI POPAT
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
YS LAKHANI for M/s. S.G. Associates for Applicant.
MR MG NANAVATI,
ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 06/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail by the applicant, who came to be
arrested in connection with FIR registered as M. Case No.1 of 2008
with CID Crime, Bhuj, Rajkot Zone for the offence punishable under
Sections 200, 203, 217, 465, 466, 467, 471, 472, 474, 475, 485, 406,
409 and 120.B of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr.
Yogesh Lakhani, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in
the alleged offence as narrated in the FIR. The applicant is not at
all involved in the alleged commission of the offence, but a false
case is foisted on him. Even the applicant has not committed forgery
of any document. Learned advocate submitted that the procedure for
allotment of land to the Bhuj Market Navnirman Trust [hereinafter
referred to as the Trust] was completed after due diligence and
verifying the records and after recording the statements of the
affected persons from the Collector’s office. Learned advocate for
the applicant submitted that the applicant is simply a Trustee of the
Trust and he was also associated with other institutions. On perusal
of the FIR, even a prima facie case is not made out against the
applicant and the FIR is filed against the applicant with ulterior
motive. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that
considering the role attributed to the applicant as reflected in the
FIR, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned advocate
further submitted that some co-accused who were Government officers
involved in the present case have also been released on bail by a
co-ordinate bench of this Court as per the order passed in Criminal
Misc. Application Nos. 6783/2010 & 4880/2010 dated 02.08.2010 &
02.08.2010 respectively. Learned advocate further submitted that
even some co-accused who were allottees of the shops have also been
released on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court as per the
orders dated 24.09.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.
10430 of 2010 and 10428 of 2010. Learned advocate for the applicant
further submitted that even one of the main accused, Pradeep N.
Sharma, has been released on regular bail by the Honourable Supreme
Court vide order dated 06.09.2010 passed in Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No. 6166 of 2010. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted
that even on the ground of parity, the applicant deserves to be
enlarged on regular bail.
Mr.
Nanavati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the
bail application submitted that the applicant is involved in an
offence punishable under Sections 200, 203, 217, 465, 466, 467, 471,
472, 474, 475, 485, 406, 409 and 120.B of the Indian Penal Code.
Considering the role attributed to the applicant and the manner in
which the applicant along with other co-accused have committed the
offence, which is of a serious nature, no discretionary relief be
granted to the applicant and the application deserves to be rejected.
Heard
learned advocate Mr. Yogesh Lakhani for the applicant and Mr.
Nanavati, learned APP. I have also perused the averments made in the
application as well as the FIR produced on record. I have also
considered the role alleged against the applicant as relected in the
FIR. The applicant at the relevant point of time was a trustee of
the Trust. One of the main accused, Pradeep N. Sharma, has been
released on regular bail by the Honourable Supreme Court. Even some
co-accused, who were Government Officers and who have played larger
role than the present applicant as reflected in the FIR, have also
been released on bail, as stated hereinabove. Considering the role
alleged against the applicant, the gravity of the offence, nature of
the offence and the manner in which the offence committed as well as
the provisions of sections 200, 203, 217, 465, 466, 467, 471, 472,
474, 475, 485, 406, 409 and 120.B of the Indian Penal Code and the
quantum of punishment, I am of the view that the the applicant is
required to be enlarged on regular bail at this stage, without
entering into the merits of the case and without discussing the
evidence in detail.
In
the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed
and the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection
with M. Case No.1 of 2008 with CID Crime, Bhuj, Rajkot Zone on
executing a bond of Rs.30,000/- [Rupees thirty thousand only] with
one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court
and subject to the conditions that he shall:
[a] not
take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;
[b]. not
act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c]. surrender
his passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
[d]. not
leave the State of Gujarat without the prior permission of the
Sessions court concerned;
[e]. mark
his presence before CID Crime, Bhuj, Rajkot Zone twice in a month,
i.e. on 15th and 30th of every English calendar
month between 9.00 AM and 2.00 PM. till the trial is over;
[f]. furnish
the present address of his residence to the I.O. and also to the
Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change his
residence without prior permission of this Court;
[g]. maintain
law and order.
If
breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions
Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or to take appropriate
action in the matter.
Bail
bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try
the case.
At
the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the
observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage,
made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct
Service is permitted.
mathew [H.B.ANTANI,
J.]
Top