In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, anticipatory bail has been granted in the case of premature fixed deposit maturity denial. The applicants, who hold the position of Chairman of the Credit Cooperative Society, were involved in a dispute regarding the maturity of an investment. The judgment comes following a thorough consideration of facts, allegations, and the role attributed to the accused in FIR registered at Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot City. Stay updated with the latest developments in this case. #GujaratHighCourt #LegalCase #AnticipatoryBail
Facts
- Learned APP, Mr. H.K. Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.
- Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed for anticipatory bail by the applicants-accused.
- FIR registered at Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot City for offences under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC.
Arguments
- The applicants have assured that they will cooperate during the investigation and trial, and will not evade justice.
- The applicants are willing to comply with all conditions set by the court, including those related to the Investigating Agency’s powers for seeking remand.
- Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Shah, argues that the current allegations do not necessitate custodial interrogation at this stage.
- Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Patel representing the respondent State opposes anticipatory bail.
- The nature and gravity of the offense are cited as reasons for opposing bail.
- The Investigating Agency’s application is mentioned, allowing the accused to oppose it later.
- Advocate Mr. Shah argues for anticipatory bail based on the above points.
Analysis
- The amount invested in a fixed deposit was denied to be matured prematurely, leading to the filing of the FIR.
- The learned advocates for the parties were heard, and the material on record was perused.
- Consideration was given to the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, and the role attributed to the accused.
- In light of the settled matter between the parties and other aspects, anticipatory bail was granted to the applicants.
- The applicants hold the position of Chairman of the Credit Cooperative Society.
- The Court is inclined to consider the case of the applicants
- The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. is taken into consideration
- The Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
- The present application is allowed
- The accused can be treated in judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand.
- The accused still has the right to seek a stay against an order of remand if ultimately granted.
- The learned Magistrate has the power to consider the accused’s request for stay in accordance with the law.
Decision
- Settlement reached between the parties.
- Applicants ordered to be released on anticipatory bail if arrested in connection with FIR C.R. No.I–11208035240257 of 2024.
- Conditions for anticipatory bail include cooperation with investigation, availability for interrogation, and not obstructing police investigation.
- Applicants must furnish addresses to investigating officer and court, not change residence, and not leave India without permission.
- Investigating Officer can file application for remand if deemed necessary.
- Despite anticipatory bail, Investigating Agency can apply for police remand.
- Applicants to remain present before learned Magistrate as required.
- Trial court should not be influenced by observations made in current order.
- Direct service permitted.
- Upon completion of police remand, applicants to be set free immediately subject to conditions of anticipatory bail order.
Case Title: PARAGBHAI ANILBHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/9616/2024
