Gujarat High Court
Anwar vs State on 1 May, 2012
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/5032/2012 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5032 of 2012
=========================================
ANWAR
@ VAJARAM @ VAJAJI NAT - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
TUSHAR L SHETH for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HL JANI, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 01/05/2012
ORAL
ORDER
By way of present successive application, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with offence registered at C.R. No.I-109 of 2009 with Deesa Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard Mr.Tushar Sheth, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
Mr.Sheth, learned counsel for the applicant, states that this is a successive bail application. Earlier application of the applicant was rejected by this Court by reasoned order. He has further contended that co-accused is released on bail by this Court and therefore, on the ground of parity also, the applicant is required to be released on bail. He has also contended that so far as other offence registered against the applicant in Rajasthan is concerned, the applicant is released on bail in two such cases by the Rajasthan High Court. He has contended that the applicant is behind the bars since last two years and four months. The offence is magistrate triable and punishable for maximum seven years. Mr.Sheth has relied upon order passed by the Supreme Court in case of Jignesh Alias Bansi Lal Navin Chandra Vs State of Gujarat reported in 2011 (10) SCC 591 and contended that the Apex Court has released the applicant of that case in bail as he has already undergone two years and two months behind the bars. He has further relied upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case of Sanjay Chandra and contended that the Apex Court has observed that bail is right of the accused and it should not be denied. In that matter, huge financial loss caused to the Government, then also the Apex Court has released the applicant on bail. Mr.Sheth has contended that applicant is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Sanjay Chandra. He has also contended that witnesses are relative of the applicant. The applicant is a poor person and even prima-facie entrustment is also not established. The amount is handed over to main accused Ashok Jadeja and the applicant is not benefited. He has further contended that applicant is in jail since two years and four months, however, except the complainant, not a single witness is examined. It clearly appears that till will not be completed in near future. Even as per the case of the prosecution, the applicant had acted as an agent of Mr.Ashok Jadeja and no monetary benefit is availed by the present applicant. He has further contended that the applicant is permanent resident of village Ladermer and will be available during the trial. The applicant will not jump the bail if he will be released on bail. He, therefore, contended that looking to the overall facts of the case and circumstances, the applicant may kindly be released on bail on any conditions.
As against this, Mr.Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the present application. He has contended that huge amount of poor persons are involved in the present case. He has further contended that looking to the statements of witnesses, main ingredient of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code is prima-facie established against the present applicant. He has further contended that the applicant was absconder for some period. Mr.Jani has further contended that applicant is involved in three offences of similar nature. He has read the earlier order passed by this Court in case of the present applicant and contended that question of parity cannot be considered. He has further contended that facts of 2G Scam case is totally different than the facts of the present case. In 2G Scam case, prosecution has cited documents running into several thousand pages whereas the facts of the present case is different than the case referred to hereinabove. He has also contended that there are chances of tampering with the witnesses by the applicant and therefore, looking to the overall facts of the case, present application may kindly be rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused papers produced before me. In the present case, money of poor persons are involved. I have perused provision of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code and looking to the statements of witnesses, prima-facie main ingredient, i.e. entrustment and dominion over the property, is established against the present applicant. I have also perused the earlier order passed by this Court while rejecting the bail application of the present application. This Court by reason order rejected the bail application after hearing the parties at length. I have also perused facts of Sanjay Chandra's case. The Apex Court has granted bail to Sanjay Chandra on different grounds. The same is not applicable in the present case. It also appears from the statement of Mr.Sheth, learned counsel for the applicant, that applicant and witnesses are relatives and therefore, there are chances of tampering with the witnesses and evidence. Looking to this aspect, question of parity cannot be considered in favour of the present applicant.
In view of above, present application deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Z. K. Saiyed, J) Anup Top