Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/14724/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 14724 of 2011
=========================================================
AMIRDAN
KANUDAN ISHRANI (GADHVI) - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRAKASH THAKKAR, SR. COUNSEL with MR DHARMESH D NANAVATY
for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MS CHETNA SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 18/11/2011
ORAL ORDER
1. This is an application
for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with the FIR bearing CR No. I-300 of
2011 registered with Umra Police Station, Surat for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) and 114 of the IPC.
2. Heard Mr.Prakash
Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.D.D.Nanavaty, for
the applicant. Mr.Thakkar has read complaint and documents and
vehemently argued that looking to the role of the present applicant
he was never director of the Company. The main directors, who are
shown in Form No.32, which is produced at page 31 to 33 they are all
released on bail. He has submitted that to book present applicant in
the offence of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC entrustment and domain
over the property prima facie requires to be established. He has
prayed that applicant is required to be enlarged on bail.
3. Heard Ms.Chetna Shah,
learned APP for the respondent State. She has vehemently opposed the
present application. She has read statements of witnesses Kalpeshbhai
Gordhanbhai, Ashokbhai Dhanjibhai, Himmatbhai Devrajbhai and Nitin
Santlal Narang and contended that from the statement of Hetal N. Shah
– co-accused prima facie it is established that present
applicant is a director. She has submitted that present applicant is
not required to be granted anticipatory bail.
4. From
the Registrar of Companies list of directors is called for, which is
produced on record and Investigating Officer – A.D.Chauhan has
stated in his report that present applicant is not director of the
said Company
5. It appears from the
record that at the time of offence committed by the co-accused
present applicant was not director of the Company so entrustment and
domain over the property prima facie is not established.
6. Having heard learned
counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and
taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has also taken
into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein the Apex Court reiterated
the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565.
7. The application is
allowed. The applicant is granted anticipatory bail in the event of
his arrest in connection with CR No. I-300 of 2011 registered
with Umra Police Station, Surat for the offences as alleged in FIR
on his executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten thousand only]
with one surety of the like amount on the following conditions that
he shall:
[a] co-operate with the
investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever
and wherever required.
[b] shall remain present
at the concerned Police Station on 21.11.2011 at 11.00 AM ;
[c] shall not hamper the
investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer;
[d] at the time of
execution of bond, furnish him residential address to the
investigating officer and the Court concerned and shall not change
the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further
orders;
[e] not leave State of
Gujarat without the permission of the Court and, if holding a
passport, he shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a
week;
[f] not obstruct or hamper
the police investigation and not play mischief with the evidence
collected or yet to be collected by the police;
8. It would be open to the
Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he
considers it proper and just; and the competent Court would decide it
on merits.
9. 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.
10. The applicant is
permitted to obtain regular bail as per the established provision of
law, within suitable time.
11. Rule made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.)
kks
Top