1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2010
  6. /
  7. January

Bhola vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|29 October, 2010


1. Heard the learned advocate Mr SV Raju for the applicant, Mr HL Jani learned APP for the respondent-State and Mr PM Thakkar learned Senior counsel with prosecution.
2. This application is filed by the applicant under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on regular bail in connection with the offence registered vide M. Case No. 1/2008 at Maninagar Police Station, for the offence punishable under sec. 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.
3. Mr SV Raju learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is falsely involved in this case. Mr Raju has contended that present applicant is a bank employee and from the documentary evidence, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that it is simply a case of civil nature and Supreme Court has also passed some orders, which Mr Raju has read. Mr Raju has also argued that major amount is recovered. Mr Raju has also contended that other accused who are main accused, are released on bail. Mr Raju, on instructions from the bank, states that the bank would be withdrawing the proceedings under SARFAESI Act with respect to the all disputed shops and opening the seals of the shops without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the bank as well as the accused in connection with the complaint including the contention that the mortgage of te shops covered under the SARFAESI Act was valid and that the bank officers, who are alleged to have beeninvolved, have no role to play and have not committed any offence, as alleged by the complainant. Mr Raju has also submitted that the aforesaid action on the part of the bank in opening of the seals on the dipsuted shops, is without prejudice the rights and contentions for quashing of criminal proceedings or to undertake other proceedings including discharge proceedings. He read the order passed by the trial Court and prayed to release the applicant on regular bail.
4. As against this, learned APP Mr H.L. Jani has strongly opposed this application and argued that prima-facie case is made out against the present applicant and therefore, this application requires to be dismissed. Mr. PM Thakkar learned Senior Counsel appearing with prosecution has also disputed the contentions raised by Mr SV Raju learned advocate for the applicant.
5. I have gone through the order passed by the trial Court as well as the papers produced on record of the case and considered the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. Looking to the allegations levelled against the applicant, I am inclined to release him on regular bail.
6. Learned advocates for the parties do not press for reasoned order.
7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with M. Case No. 1/2008 registered at Maninagar Police Station for the offences alleged against him in this application on his executing bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to the conditions that he shall,
a) not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;
b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
c) not leave the local limits of State of Gujarat without the prior permission of the concerned Sessions Judge.
d) furnish the address of his residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
e) surrender his Passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
8. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being.
9. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the concerned Sessions Judge will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.
10. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case.
11. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage, made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
[ Z.K. SAIYED, J. ] mandora/ Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Bhola vs State


High Court Of Gujarat

29 October, 2010