In a recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court, anticipatory bail has been granted in connection with FIR C.R. No. 11191008240383 of 2024 at Chandkheda Police Station. The court considered the case of the applicant-accused and the first informant regarding the sale of two flats. Despite certain discrepancies in executing the sale deed, the court found merit in granting anticipatory bail based on the principles laid down in various legal cases. Stay tuned for more updates on this significant legal ruling in Gujarat.
Facts
- The Learned APP waived service of the rule for the respondent-State.
- The applicant-accused has filed an application under Section 438 of the CrPC for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR C.R. No. 11191008240383 of 2024 at Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad.
Arguments
- The applicant is anticipating arrest in connection with the mentioned FIR.
- An earlier application filed by the applicant before the learned Sessions Court was disallowed.
- The Additional Public Prosecutor opposing anticipatory bail stated that the applicant agreed to sell two flats to the first informant, who paid the full consideration, but the sale deed was not executed. The applicant later sold one of the flats to a third party in 2018.
- The applicant’s active role in the offense is emphasized by the prosecution.
- The investigation is stated to be at a very initial stage.
- The present applicant had sold one of the flats to a third party in 2018 despite ongoing communications between the parties.
- There is active participation on the part of the present applicant in the commission of the offense in question.
- Learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Trivedi is permitted to file his appearance and affidavit on behalf of the first informant before the Court’s Registry.
- The learned advocate representing the original complainant opposed the present application, mentioning that the present applicant had paid Rs. 36,80,000 in the account of the complainant, but no sale deed was executed thereafter.
Analysis
- The present applicant agreed to sell 2 flats to the first informant but did not execute any sale-deed for the same.
- The applicant sold one of the flats to a third party in 2018, instead of fulfilling the agreement with the first informant.
- No civil action was initiated by the first informant regarding the dispute.
- The nature of the dispute and lack of action by the first informant have been considered by the court.
- The court considered the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, where it was observed that discretion can be exercised when there is a punishment of 7 years.
- The court emphasized the two main factors required to be considered: prima facie case and the need for accused for custodial interrogation.
- In the present case, the court is inclined to consider the applicant’s case based on the above factors.
- The court referred to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565.
- The court also considered the ratio laid down in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. in Special Leave Petition No 7281-7282/2017 dated 29.01.2020.
Decision
- The trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by the Court.
- The doors for remand by the Investigating Officer are open, and the court can exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
- The application for anticipatory bail is allowed, and the rule is made absolute to a certain extent.
- The applicant is ordered to cooperate with the investigation and be available for interrogation on a specific date.
- Conditions for anticipatory bail include not making inducements, threats, or promises to any involved person, not obstructing the investigation, not leaving the country without court permission, and surrendering the passport if applicable.
- Direct service is permitted, and the applicant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail upon arrest in connection with the specific FIR.
Case Title: NARENDRA DHIRAJLAL GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/10007/2024
