Read about the recent Gujarat High Court judgment on a bail application in the case of FIR C.R. No 11201002210008 of 2021. The court considered various factors in the case related to the 2G spectrum scam and the allocation of unified access services licenses. Stay informed on the legal proceedings and decisions made by the court.
Facts
- Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State.
- The Applicant filed the Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for Regular Bail.
- The FIR in question is C.R. No 11201002210008 of 2021 registered with CIDC Crime Ahmedabad Zone Police Station, Ahmedabad City.
- The learned Advocate represents the Applicant, and the learned APP represents the Respondent – State.
Arguments
- The lawyer for the Respondent argued that a common plot of the society was being transferred for a loan of Rs.1.80 crores, which was not repaid, leading to the FIR.
- It was found that the documents provided for security in obtaining the loan were forged.
- Urged the court not to grant bail due to the nature and seriousness of the offense.
- The prosecution opposed the bail application citing ongoing investigation.
- The Respondent is willing to comply with any conditions if granted bail.
- The alleged incident occurred between 2013 and 2015 but the FIR was filed in 2021 without a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
- The Applicant’s good reputation in society was highlighted as a reason for bail.
Analysis
- The court considered factors such as prima facie case, availability of Applicant at trial, and potential tampering with witnesses.
- The Applicant’s lawyer argued that the Applicant is not likely to abscond.
- Ongoing proceedings at the Debt Recovery Tribunal were noted from the record.
- The case concerns the 2G spectrum scam and the allocation of unified access services licenses.
- Issues relate to the loss caused to the public exchequer due to irregular allocations.
- The accused include public servants and private individuals involved in the decision-making process.
- Challenges to the charge-framing order are raised on multiple grounds by the accused.
- The court examines the legality and validity of the charge-framing order issued by the special court, taking into account the evidence and circumstances of the case.
Decision
- The Authorities will release the Applicant forthwith only if the Applicant is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being.
- The Trial Court may grant time to furnish the solvency certificate if requested.
- Contact numbers of the Applicant and sureties must be provided to the Trial Court, and any changes to these numbers should be immediately communicated in writing.
- The Applicant must not leave India without prior permission from the Trial Court.
- If the Applicant has a passport, it must be surrendered to the Trial Court within a week.
- If any of the conditions are breached, the Trial Court can issue a warrant or take appropriate legal action.
- The Trial Court should not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by the higher court in this order during the trial.
- Rule is made absolute, and the bail bond must be executed before the Trial Court.
- The Applicant can be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
- The Applicant must not influence witnesses, maintain law and order, and not engage in criminal activities.
- If the Applicant does not have a passport, an affidavit to that effect must be filed.
- The Applicant must provide proof of current residence, notify any changes in residence to the Trial Court, and obtain permission before changing residence.
- The Applicant has been in custody since 20.2.2024.
- An affidavit detailing immovable properties owned by the Applicant must be filed before the Trial Court.
Case Title: MANISH JAGDISHBHAI KARCHOMAL LAKHVANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/6696/2024
