Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/15550/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 15550 of 2011
=========================================================
NIKUNJBEN
BHUPENDRABHAI JARIWALA & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PH GOHIL for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.MR VAIBHAV A VYAS for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MS
CHETNA SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 17/11/2011
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule.
Ms.Chetna Shah, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondent.
2. This
Application has been preferred under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in connection with the offence being CR No.I-163
of 2011 registered with Athva Lines Police Station, Surat for the
offences u/s. 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 114 and 511 of the IPC.
3. Heard
Mr.V.A.Vyas, learned counsel for the applicants. He has submitted
that applicant No.1 is an advocate and applicant No.2 is her
assistant. The applicant No.1 is practicing as an advocate for more
than 21 years. He has submitted that due to professional rivalry with
accused No.2 – Mr.Mahesh Mohanlal Joshi the complainant has
filed bogus complaint. He has submitted that case of the prosecution
is that accused No.1 and 2 approached the ICICI Bank, Surat for
availing loan with the forged Fixed Deposit Receipt. He has submitted
that applicants are wrongly booked by the complainant. He has
submitted that applicants will be available during interrogation and
investigation. He has prayed that applicants may be granted
anticipatory bail.
4. Heard
Ms.Chetna Shah, learned APP for the respondent – State. She has
read order passed by the learned Judge and contents of the FIR and
vehemently argued that looking to the statements of witnesses of
ICICI Bank, Noorsing Subhash Mishra, Abhishek Ratankumar Thakur,
Darshan Shivkumar Dave, Manish Narayan Aaiyar and Mathurdas Nayak and
looking to the statements of co-accused Mohanlal Joshi and Jatin
Mahendrakumar, they have specifically stated that the present
applicants are involved in the commission of said offence. She has
submitted that co-accused Mohanlal Joshi has made contact with the
applicants to obtain loan with forged Fixed Deposit Receipt and
present applicants gave forged Fixed Deposits Receipt of Rs.1.25
crores from ICICI bank, Hyderabad, to Jatin Bardolia for obtaining
loan of Rs.1.12 crore. In lieu of this, present applicants decided to
give 10% commission to Jatin Bardolia. She has submitted that looking
to the role played by the present applicants custodial interrogation
is required. She has prayed that applicants may not be granted
anticipatory bail.
5. Having
heard the learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, statements of the witnesses, gravity
of the offence and quantum of punishment and the fact there is
definite allegation made against the applicants, I am not inclined to
grant bail to the applicants. The learned Judge has considered
statements of the witnesses which are recorded by the Investigating
Officer. In the statement of the co-accused role of the present
applicants are prima facie established. I have perused Section 10 of
the Evidence Act and contents of the complaint shows that ingredients
of Section 120B are prima facie established. Hence, prima facie case
is made out against the present applicant. As custodial interrogation
of the present applicants is required.
6. Accordingly
this application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
kks
Top