In a recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court, anticipatory bail has been granted in connection with FIR C.R. No.11210060241195 of 2024. The court considered various factors before making this decision, including the gravity of the offense and the role attributed to the accused. The applicant, who is a friend of the co-accused, had obtained goods worth Rs.14,46,558 from the first informant’s firm. The judgment in this case sets an important precedent for similar cases in the future.
Facts
- The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waived service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.
- The applicant-accused filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR C.R. No.11210060241195 of 2024 registered at Varachha Police Station in District Surat.
Arguments
- The respondent – State supported the opposition to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
- The respondent’s advocate argued that the applicant had obtained goods worth Rs.14,46,558 from the firm of the first informant without making payment.
- The applicant is anticipating arrest in connection with the FIR due to the non-payment for the goods.
- The earlier application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court was disallowed.
- The respondent’s advocate requested the court to consider the facts presented in the application and grant anticipatory bail.
- The Additional Public Prosecutor argued against granting bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offense.
Analysis
- The court considered two main factors required for decision – prima facie case and the need for custodial interrogation.
- Given the allegations, gravity of the offense, and the role attributed to the accused, the court leaned towards granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
- Referred to decisions of the Supreme Court and cited the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab.
- Noted that the applicant is a friend of the other co-accused who had obtained goods worth Rs.14,46,558/- from the first informant’s firm, with a partial payment of Rs.6,05,361/- made.
- The court considered the ratio laid down in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
- The judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar was also taken into consideration.
- In the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the court observed that discretion should be exercised in cases where the punishment is 7 years.
Decision
- The applicant has been granted anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR.
- Conditions for the anticipatory bail include cooperating with the investigation, being present at the Police Station on a specified date, not influencing witnesses, not obstructing the investigation, and furnishing address to the investigating officer and court.
- Applicant must not leave India without court permission and deposit passport if possessed.
- The court reserves the right to remand the applicant if required.
- The trial court should not be influenced by the observations in this order during the trial.
Case Title: DIPAKBHAI DHIRUBHAI VASANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/11201/2024
