Manishkumar Shankarsingh Rajpurohit vs State Of Gujarat on 20 January, 2025

0
135

Gujarat High Court

Manishkumar Shankarsingh Rajpurohit vs State Of Gujarat on 20 January, 2025

                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/1104/2025                               ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025

                                                                                                          undefined




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 1104
                                                  of 2025
                       ==========================================================
                                        MANISHKUMAR SHANKARSINGH RAJPUROHIT
                                                       Versus
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR ROHAN H. RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                        Date : 20/01/2025

                                                         ORAL ORDER

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on
behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

[1.0] By way of the present application under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has
prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his
arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210023241281
of 2024 registered with Khatodara Police Station, Surat for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

[2.0] Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely
enroped in the offence. It is submitted that the applicant is
working as a broker in the cloth market and he has introduced
the merchants and the complainant entered into the
transactions and he has sold the goods to the said 5 firms and at

Page 1 of 5

Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 21 21:56:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1104/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025

undefined

that time, the applicant has given assurance that he will assure to
make payment but concerned party has failed to make payment
of an amount of Rs.1,22,52,955/-. In this regard for the recovery
purpose, the complaint is filed. No antecedent is reported
against the applicant. Now nothing remains to be recovered or
discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial
interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the
applicant is available during the course of investigation and will
not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be
granted anticipatory bail.

[3.0] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf
of the respondent – State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail
looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has
submitted that present applicant is involved in the offence and
he is named in the FIR. It is submitted that he is the main person,
who has introduced 5 merchants co-accused with the
complainant and then he entered into transactions and on credit,
he has supplied grey cloths and party has failed to make payment
of Rs. of Rs.1,22,52,955/- and amount of complainant is duped.
Prima facie offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is
made out and hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant
is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application.

[4.0] Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and
perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon
the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and
strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a

Page 2 of 5

Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 21 21:56:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1104/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025

undefined

plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is
well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be
borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the
nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the
applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of
any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee
from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with
the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him
so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate
examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit
of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided.
I have considered the following aspects.

(1) Offence is not punishable with life imprisonment or
death penalty;

(2) Alleged offence is of October, 2024;

(3) the allegations levelled against the present applicant is
that he was broker and he has introduced the co-accused
merchants and duped them and the complainant entered
into transactions he has given goods on credit. He has
received money from the said merchant and there is no
direct connection in transaction or delivery of goods. Goods
are received and money is not paid;

(4) no antecedent is reported against the applicant;

[5.0] Considering the aforesaid aspects and the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa

Page 3 of 5

Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 21 21:56:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1104/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025

undefined

Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2011) 1
SCC 6941, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law
laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 665 and
also the decision in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT
of Delhi
) reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, I am inclined to allow the
present application.

[6.0] In the result, the present application is allowed by directing
that in the event of arrest / appearance of the applicant in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210023241281 of 2024
registered with Khatodara Police Station, Surat, the applicant
shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like
amount on the following conditions that applicant :

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make
himself available for interrogation whenever
required;

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police
Station on 29/01/2025 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00
p.m. and the IO shall ensure that no unnecessary
harassment or inconvenience is caused to the
applicant;

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation
and not to play mischief with the evidence collected
or yet to be collected by the police;

Page 4 of 5

Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 21 21:56:02 IST 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/1104/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025

undefined

(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the
address to the investigating officer and the court
concerned and shall not change his residence till the
final disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the
Court and if having passport shall deposit the same
before the Trial Court within a week;

(g) an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner
limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or
investigative agency, to investigate into the charges
against the person who seeks and is granted pre-
arrest bail;

(h) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to
move the learned trial Court for a direction under
Section 483(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of
violation of any term, such as absconding, non-
cooperating during investigation, evasion,
intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view
to influence outcome of the investigation or trial,
etc.-

[7.0] At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the
applicant on bail.

[8.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application
is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
KUMAR ALOK

Page 5 of 5

Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jan 21 21:56:02 IST 2025

[ad_1]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here