Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/13078/2010 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13078 of 2010
=========================================================
AJAYBHAI
RAMESHBHAI GANDHI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JB PARDIWALA FOR MR RUSHABH R SHAH
for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR RC KODEKAR, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 27/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned APP
appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent
– State of Gujarat.
The
petitioner preferred this application seeking anticipatory bail
u/s.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘the Code’, for short) in
connection with Jalalpor police station, Navsari M.Case No.6 of 2010
in connection with offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467,
468, 471, 474, 120(B) r/w. Sections 114 and 34 of the IPC.
Considering
the facts of the case and with consent of both the sides, the matter
is taken up for final hearing today.
Mr.J.B.Pardiwala,
learned advocate for Mr.Rushabh R.Shah, learned advocate for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an advocate by
profession and perusing the FIR, so also the affidavit of
Investigating Police Officer, which he filed before the trial Court
in the bail application of the petitioner, it has been specifically
stated that what the present petitioner did was his professional
work, and as an advocate, upon the details and documents supplied to
him, he acted. It is further submitted that, however, so far as the
FIR is concerned, name of the petitioner does not reflect. It is
submitted that during the course of investigation, the name of the
petitioner came to the surface, only when the statements of
co-accused persons, namely, Babubhai and Ajay Patil came to be
recorded. However, in this respect, it is submitted that so far as
co-accused Ajay Patil is concerned, the Sessions Court granted
anticipatory bail to him. Perusing the FIR and the affidavit of the
Investigating Police Officer, it clearly transpires that co-accused
persons, namely, Babubhai and Ajay Patil hatched the conspiracy and
created documents and they provided details to the
petitioner-advocate and the petitioner- advocate completed the
remaining formalities before Sub-Registrar. It is submitted that
when one of the main co-accused persons, namely, Ajay Patil has been
granted anticipatory bail, whom more serious role is attributed by
the prosecution than the role attributed to the petitioner, this
application may be allowed.
Per
contra, Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned APP representing the respondent –
State of Gujarat vehemently opposed this application and stated that
considering the statements of co-accused persons, namely, Babubhai
and Ajay Patil, it is revealed that it was the present petitioner,
who advised them to prepare forged documents in the name of one
deceased person and pose somebody else in capacity as deceased
person. It is further submitted that considering Section 120(B) of
the IPC r/w.Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the statements of
co-accused can be read. Therefore, it is submitted that the
application may be dismissed.
Having
considered the submissions advcanced on behalf of both the sides, so
also considering the FIR, wherein the name of the petitioner does
not reflect, and considering the affidavit of the Investigating
Police Officer filed before the trial Court during the pendency of
the bail application of the petitioner before the trial Court, it
clearly transpires that co-accused persons, namely, Babubhai and
Ajay Patil hatched the conspiracy for preparing bogus documents in
the name of one deceased person and it was co-accused Ajay Patil,
who purchased the stamp papers and supplied those stamp papers and
other details to petitioner – advocate. It further transpires
that co-accused Ajay Patil has been granted anticipatory bail by the
trial Court. Moreover, considering the nature of the offence, it
clearly transpires that more or less, it depends upon the evidence
in the form of documents. It further transpires that the offences
alleged against the petitioner are such, which are triable by the
Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Thus, considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the above
discussions, I am of the opinion that subject to laying down certain
conditions, if the anticipatory bail application is granted, it
would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly,
the present application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be
released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with
Jalalpor police station, Navsari M.Case No.6 of 2010 in respect of
the offences alleged against him on his executing bond of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five thousand only) with one solvent surety of like amount,
by him, by the concerned Police Officer and on conditions that he
shall;
a) remain present before the trial Court regularly as and when directed on the dates fixed;
b) remain present at the Jalapor police station, Navsari on 1.11.2010 between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m;
c) make himself available for interrogation by Police Officer, whenever and wherever required;
d) 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;
e) not to obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
f) at the time of execution of bond, furnish his address to the Investigating Officer and the Courts concerned, and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;
g) not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having Passport, shall deposit the same before the trial Court within a week;
h) It
should 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.
This
order will hold good if the petitioner is arrested at any time
within 90 days from today. The order for release on bail will remain
operative only for a period of ten days from the date of her arrest,
during which it will be open to the petitioner to make fresh
application for being enlarged on bail in usual course which when it
comes before the competent Court, will be disposed of in accordance
with law, having regard to all the attending circumstances and the
materials available at the relevant time, uninfluenced by the fact
that anticipatory bail was granted.
Rule
is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
(binoy)
Top