Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/969420/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9694 of
2008
=========================================
KANAIYALAL
ALIAS KANUBHAI SHANKERLAL PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MS
JAYSHREE C BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HL
JANI, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 28/07/2008
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE.
Mr HL Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of
Rule for the State. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
by consent of both the sides, this petition is taken up for hearing
today.
2. This
is an application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with FIR bearing CR No. I – 3 of 2008
registered at GIDC Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 421, 422 and 114 of the IPC.
3. Ms
JC Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely involved in
the commission of offences. The petitioner is a labourer and doing
work of Diamond polishing at Surat and during the aforesaid period,
he came in contact of Chairman of Ekta Co-operative Society.
Thereafter, the Chairman of Ekta Co-operative Society and one Sandeep
Champaklal Shah requested the present petitioner to open the savings
account in his own Bank known as Ekta Co-operative Society. In view
of the aforesaid situation, the petitioner believed in good faith and
opened the account in the Bank. The learned Advocate for the
petitioner submitted that huge misappropriation to the tune of Rs.78
lacs has taken place, but the petitioner is nowhere involved in the
commission of offences and no overt act can be alleged against the
petitioners so as to rope in the present petitioner in the commission
of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 421, 422 and 114
of the IPC. The learned advocate for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the affidavit filed by Smt. Smitaben Kanaiyalal Patel and
the documents produced along with the affidavit in support of the
submission that the petitioner on bare perusal of the said annexures
cannot be held liable for the offences alleged against him and in
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner may be
released on regular bail as set out in the petition.
4. Mr
HL Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State
submitted that considering the FIR produced at Annexure-A to the
petition and the role attributed to the present petitioner, he had
put signatures in the various cheques which were issued on behalf of
Ekta Co-operative Society. Those cheques to the tune of
Rs.13,72,000/- were bounced and therefore, the petitioner was prima
facie involved in the commission of offences alleged against him.
Thus, considering the seriousness of the offences in which the
petitioner is involved, the petition deserves to be rejected.
5. Having
considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the averments made
in the petition and the FIR at Annexure-A to the petition, the
petitioner is booked for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
409, 420, 421, 422 and 114 of the IPC. The order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Application
No.1789 of 2008 and the reasons assigned by the learned Judge is
perused by me. Considering the nature of the offences in which the
petitioner is involved and the manner in which huge amount which is
misappropriated, it is not a fit case to grant bail to the
petitioner. The petitioner while working as a member of Ekta
Co-operative Society had under his signature issued the cheques to
the tune of Rs.13,72,000/- which is also revealed in the
investigation. Those cheques were bounced and as the present
petitioner is the main accused in the commission of offences alleged
against him, the petitioner, in my considered view, cannot be
enlarged on bail.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed.
Rule
is discharged.
(H.B.
Antani, J.)
mrpandya*
Top