1. This is an application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant, who came to be arrested in connection with CR No. I-44 of 2010 registered at Fatehpura Police Station, District : Dahod, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 381, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel Mr. I.H. Saiyed for Mr. Japan Dave for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely involved in the case. He submitted that from the bare reading of the complaint, there is no role attributed to the applicant. The applicant is not likely to jump the bail, if he is granted bail. Even from the evidence, there is no involvement on the part of the applicant is established. He also submitted that earlier the applicant preferred one application for bail being Criminal Misc. Application No.6823 of 2011, which was dismissed by this Court on 1.8.2011. That order is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the petitioner may move before the High Court for correct facts and to consider as to whether the amount of money is siphoned away or not, whether it is a case of misappropriation or not. He also submitted that the co-accused is released by this Court. He also submitted that the applicant is in jail since long period. He also submitted that looking to the case, prima facie it appears that the no amount is siphoned away. He also submitted that simply on the basis of discovery panchnama, bail may not be rejected. He lastly prayed to release the applicant on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Saiyed produced the list of 10 matters, wherein the co-accused have been released on bail by this Court and the matters which are as follow :
Criminal Misc. No.13100 of 2010 Criminal Misc. No.12843 of 2010 Criminal Misc. No.1498 of 2011 Criminal Misc. No.3786 of 2011 Criminal Misc. No.14697 of 2010 Criminal Misc. No.13210 of 2010 Criminal Misc. No.15036 of 2010 Criminal Misc. No.15432 of 2010 Criminal Misc. No.57 of 2011 Criminal Misc. No.56 of 2011
3. Learned APP Mr. Jani strongly opposed the application of the applicant and submitted that discover is made from the possession of the applicant. The documents of the scheme namely NREGA have been recovered from the possession of the applicant and due to offence committed by the applicant, so many poor persons have suffered. Considering the seriousness of offence, in which the applicant is involved, gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment of the alleged offence, discretion may not be exercised in favour of the applicant.
4. Perused the application along with other papers and on perusal of the role attributed to the applicant as reflected in the FIR, police papers, provisions of Sections 406, 409, 381, 420, 468, 467, 471 120(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, quantum of punishment and prima facie it appears that the co-accused have been released by this Court in the above referred matters, I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. At this stage of bail, this Court is not discussing the evidence in detail nor going into merit of the case. This is successive bail application.
5. In view of the above, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail in connection with C.R.No.I-44 of 2010 of Fatehpura Police Station, District : Dahod for the offences punishable as alleged against the applicant on his furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and on conditions that the applicant shall :
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or abuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] maintain law and order;
[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
[e] furnish the address of residence at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
[f] surrender passport, if any, to the Lower Court immediately.
6. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.
7. 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. Bail before the Lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.) ynvyas Top