Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9232/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9232 of 2008
=====================================================
VALAJIBHAI
SHANKARBHAI MAKWANA - Applicant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent
=====================================================Appearance
:
MR LAXMANBHAI A AMAR for the
Applicant.,
MR HL JANI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent.
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 18/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. RULE.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H. L. Jani waives service
of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for hearing today.
2. This
is an application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking regular bail of the petitioner in connection with
C. R. No. 341 of 2007 filed at Sector-7 Police Station, Gandhinagar
for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 406 and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned
Advocate Mr. L. A. Amar for the petitioner submitted that considering
the role attributed to the petitioner, which is reflected in the FIR,
it is a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. The petitioner
was working in the Bank at the material point of time and he was not
involved in the alleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 406 and 114
of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate submitted that
considering the role played by the petitioner, the prayer, as set
out, in the petition be granted. The learned Advocate also placed
reliance on the affidavit filed by Surendranath Umapati Pandey which
was produced in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 228 of 2008
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gandhinagar. The
learned Advocate further submitted that in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 7969 of 2008, the accused was granted bail by this
Court and considering the parity, the petitioner be also granted
bail.
4. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H. L. Jani representing the
respondent-State submitted that considering the role attributed to
the petitioner and the nature of the offences in which the petitioner
is involved, it is not a fit case to grant bail in favour of the
petitioner. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
huge amount of Rs. 2,55,685/-, which was required to be paid to P. K.
Chaudhary Arts College, Gandhinagar for the year 2005-06 towards the
scholarship, was siphoned off by the petitioner along with other
accused persons, and considering the seriousness of the offences and
the involvement of the petitioner in other cases of like nature, the
petition deserves to be rejected.
5. Having
considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the averments made
in the petition as well as the FIR, it is clear that the petitioner
is booked for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 406
and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the role attributed to
the petitioner in FIR and taking into account the seriousness of the
offences in which the petitioner is booked for the offences stated in
the FIR, it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner. The
petitioner was involved in siphoning off the huge amount of Rs.
2,55,685/- along with other accused which was granted by the State
Government for the purpose of providing scholarship to P. K.
Chaudhary Arts College, Sector-7, Gandhinagar for the year 2005-06.
Instead of giving that amount to the College, the entire amount was
misappropriated. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 7969 of 2008 dated 30-06-2008 (Coram: Z. K. Saiyed, J.) and
submitted that parity is required to be maintained and the petitioner
is required to be released on bail. However, considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, in my considered view,
cannot claim parity as the huge amount has been misappropriated by
the petitioner along with other co-accused. The petitioner is also
involved in number of cases of similar nature and, therefore, the
Court cannot be oblivious to this aspect. In view of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is devoid of
merits, and, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is dismissed.
[H.
B. ANTANI, J.]
/shamnath
Top