Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
R/CR.MA/7614/2011
ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No 7614 of 2011
================================================================
AJAYKUMAR
NAVNITLAL SHAH....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR
MEHUL SHARAD SHAH as ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR
JK SHAH APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 07/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP,
Mr.J.K.Shah, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of State.
2. This is an application
under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for regular bail
in connection with offence registered with Padara Police Station
vide M.Case No.2 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections
404, 409, 415, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Heard learned advocate
Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah for accused-applicant and learned APP
Mr.J.K.Shah for respondent State.
4. The accused applicant
herein and the first informant are natural brothers. As per the
complaint, the accused applicant and first informant were
partners in the firm running in the name and style of Shah Navnitlal
Punjalal Choksi. The said partnership firm was dissolved and
converted into a proprietary concern on 21.3.2000.It is alleged in
the complaint that after the death of the father, the accused-
applicant had agreed in presence of the family members to pay
Rs.7,50,000/- to the complainant and the agreement to that effect was
also executed between two brothers. It is further alleged that as per
the Will executed by the father, the complainant is also entitled 45%
share in the movable property of the father but, the
accused-applicant prepared a false consent agreement on 25.3.2005 by
forging the signature of his father to the effect that father has
given the business of the proprietary firm to the accused-applicant
solely. It is further alleged by the complainant that his father has
never executed such a consent agreement but, this false document
created by the accused-applicant.
4.1 Prima facie, it appears
to be a family dispute. So called document is of the year 2005 and
after a period of about 6 years, now brother has raised dispute as
regards genuineness of the document.
4.2 In any view of the
matter, I am informed today by learned advocate Mr.Shah that the
entire matter has been settled amicably between the two brothers and
no dispute now remains to be resolved. This is further confirmed by
learned advocate Mr.Nilesh Shah, who has appeared for the original
complainant.
5. In this view of the
matter, taking into consideration the nature of the dispute and the
fact that now the settlement has been arrived at between two
brothers, the accused applicant can be ordered to be released on
bail. Under the circumstances, accused-applicant is ordered to be
enlarged on regular bail in connection with offence registered with
Padara Police Station being M.Case No.2 of 2010 on his executing a
bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with
one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court
and subject to the conditions that he shall:
(i)
not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;
(ii)
not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
(iii)
maintain law and order;
(iv)
not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the
Sessions
Court concerned;
(vi) furnish the address of
his residence at the time of execution of the bond and shall not
change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
(vii)
surrender his passport, if any, to the Lower Court immediately.
6. goes without saying that
any observations touching the merits of the case is purely for the
purpose of deciding the question of grant of bail and shall not be
construed as an expression of the final opinion in the main matter.
7. If breach of any of the
above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be
free to take appropriate action in the matter. Bail before the Lower
Court having jurisdiction to try the case.
8. Rule is made absolute.
Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
(vipul)
Page
3 of 3
Top