Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1509/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1509 of 2010
=========================================================
MUKESHBHAI
KHANDAS MEKWAN & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MHM SHAIKH for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MS TK PATEL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR MH BAREJIA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR SR
YADAV for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 11/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 [ Code for short] by the applicants who came to
be arrested in connection with I CR No. 155/09 registered with
Maninagar police station for the offence punishable under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code.
Learned
advocate Mr. MHM Shaikh for the applicants submitted that the
applicants are innocent persons and they have not committed any
offence as alleged in the FIR. Date of the offence as per the
complaint is shown to be from 2004 to 2007 and complaint itself is
lodged on 5.9.09. Thus, there is inordinate delay
in lodging the complaint. Complainant has also filed Civil Suit No.
187 of 2008 to get back possession of the residential premises from
the applicant no.1. It is further contended that as per the
complaint, complainant was cheated by the applicant for Rs. 36.00
lacs and by way of compromise, the applicants had paid Rs. 25.00 lacs
in 2008. There is no evidence on the record of the case to show that
the applicants had prepared false receipts etc. and used them as
genuine documents. Considering the aforesaid aspect and the age of
the applicant no.1 who is 60 years of age, both the applicants
deserve to be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted by learned
advocate that one of the applicants-accused in connection with the
present offence had preferred Criminal Misc. Application before this
Court for quashing of the complaint and stay was granted by this
Court qua that applicant. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, the applicants be enlarged on bail as
prayed for in the application.
Ms.
T.K. Patel, learned APP, representing the opponent State, while
opposing the bail application submitted that the applicants are
involved in serious offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467,
468 and 471
of IPC. Considering the role attributed to the applicants and the
manner in which the offence is committed by them with other accused,
no discretionary relief be granted to the applicants and the
application is may be dismissed.
I
have heard the learned advocates of both the sides at length and in
great detail. I have perused the averments made in the application,
role attributed to the applicants, police papers and statements of
witnesses which are produced for my perusal by the learned APP. I
have also considered the provisions of Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471 of Indian Penal Code as well as quantum of punishment. The manner
in which the offence is committed by the applicants has been
revealed in the FIR. Huge amount of Rs. 36.00 lacs is at stake in the
present case. It has been strenuously contended by the learned
advocate for the applicants that amount of Rs. 25.00 lacs is already
paid in the year 2008, but there is nothing on record to substantiate
the aforesaid version. On perusal of the order passed by the learned
Additional City Sessions Court No.14, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 324 of 2010, it becomes clear that cheques which were
issued were also bounced. Considering the aforesaid aspect and the
manner in which the alleged offence
is committed by the applicants, no lenient view can be taken in the
matter. It is also contended by the learned advocate for the
applicants that the applicant no.1 is aged about 60 years and
considering his age, he may be enlarged on bail. However, taking into
account the totality of the circumstances and the documents on record
of the case, I am of the view that no discretionary relief be granted
to the applicant.
For
the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the application and it is
hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[H.B.
Antani, J.]
pirzada/-
Top