Rule.
Service of rule is waived by learned APP Mr. HL Jani for the respondent-State.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicant-accused for grant of regular bail under sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the charge sheet is filed.
3. The applicant-accused is charged with having committed offences under sections 170, 171, 447, 465, 468, 389, 471, 114 of IPC for which FIR, being C.R. No. I-54/2009, has been registered with Dhoraji Police Station.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli submitted that as the investigation is over and the charge sheet has been filed, the present application may be allowed. It was submitted that the applicant-accused has impersonated as a Food and Drugs Control Officer and while taking the samples, for not filing the complaint demanded an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. It was submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence and as the charge sheet has now been filed, the present application may be allowed.
5. Learned APP Mr. Jani submitted that though the charge sheet has been filed and the documents have been seized, it is required to be mentioned that the applicant accused had not only impersonated himself as a government official 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 he might have similar such other material like documents containing the emblem and seal of the government which can be again utilized if he is released on bail. He further submitted that this reflects the intention and the well-prepared design to commit the offence.
6. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present application can be entertained or not.
7. 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 applicant is said to have been impersonated himself as a government authorized officer and for that purpose he has 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 applicant is also named in the FIR and the allegations are made attributing the role to all the three accused persons. Thus, the applicant with the other co-accused has connived and abetted in the offence. Therefore, though the applicant is not a person authorized by the Food and Drugs Department, Govt. of India, he has 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 applicant is released on bail, he may have the tendency to use similar such letter pads or the government seal and emblem printed on the letter pads or card which he may again utilize.
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