The present application has been filed by the applicants-accused for grant of regular bail under sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the charge sheet is filed.
2. The applicant-accused is charged with having committed offences under sections 170, 171, 417, 447, 465, 468, 389, 471, 384, 389, 34 114, 120B of IPC for which FIR, being C.R. No. I-54/2009, has been registered with Dhoraji City Police Station.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Tushar Sheth for the applicants accused submitted that as the investigation is over and the charge sheet is now filed, the present application may be allowed as the case is based on documentary evidence. He submitted that the applicants-accused are said to have impersonated as government officials of the Food and Drugs Department (Government of India) and are alleged to have taken the samples and also collected Rs. 25,000/- for not filing a complaint. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth submitted that the trial may take some time and therefore as the case is based on documentary evidence, the present application may be allowed.
4. Learned APP Mr. Desai submitted that though the charge sheet has been filed and the documents have been seized, it is required to be mentioned that the applicantS accused had not only impersonated themselves as government officials using government seal and emblem on the letter pad and identity card and other documents and thereby tried to extract money. Therefore, it was submitted that the nature of offence is serious and possibility cannot be ruled out that THEY might have similar such other material like documents containing the emblem and seal of the government which Can be again utilized if they are released on bail. He further submitted that tHis reflects the intention and the well-prepared design to commit the offence.
5. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present application can be entertained or not.
6. Though it has been submitted that the charge sheet has now been filed and the case is based on documentary evidence, it cannot be overlooked that the nature of offence alleged is serious. The applicants are said to have impersonated themselves as government authorized officers and for that purpose they have also used the identity card and other documents with government seal and emblem. It is required to be mentioned that the car in which they had come also had a plate or the writing 'Government of India'. The applicants are also named in the FIR and the allegations are made attributing the role to all the three accused persons. The applicants in connivance with the other co-accused have committed the offence. Therefore, though the applicants are not persons authorized by the Food and Drugs Department, Govt. of India, have collected the samples, applied bogus seals and also used the documents with government seal and emblem to extract money. Therefore, the nature of offence is serious and if the applicants are released on bail, they may have the tendency to use similar such letter pads or the government seal and emblem printed on the letter pads or card.
7. It is also required to be mentioned that specific information was called from the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Govt. of India, by the I.O. and it has been clarified that to give boost to the growth of food processing industries the applicant-accused No. 2 has been included as an individual member of the Task Force for Gujarat, but the role assigned to such member is totally different where he can suggest for the improvement regarding food processing industries and also suggest measures for safety and standards for testing facilities and also identify the key reasons for under-development of the processing sector. This appears to have been misused and if the applicant is released, he would then again work as a member of the Task Force for Gujarat.
8. Therefore, considering the nature of offence, the manner in which it is committed, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present application. It is required to be mentioned that while considering the application for bail, the aspect of liberty of the accused on one hand and the public interest on the other hand have to be balanced. It is in this background the Court is of the opinion that the present application deserves to be rejected.
The application accordingly stands rejected. Rule is discharged.
(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.) (hn) Top