Gujarat High Court
Jayshreebaa Anirruddhsinh Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 4 May, 2022
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
R/CR.MA/18707/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18707 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed YES
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
JAYSHREEBAA ANIRRUDDHSINH GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. R. K. RAJPUT(6988) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RISHABH JAIN FOR MR DIGANT M POPAT(5385) for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 04/05/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. The present application has been filed for cancellation of regular bail granted to the respondent No.2-original accused No.1 vide order dated 24.05.2021 in Criminal Misc. Application No.3410 of 2021 passed by the City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Rajput for the applicant has submitted that the original accused-
Page 1 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:45:58 IST 2022R/CR.MA/18707/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022 respondent No.2 had filed an affidavit dated 16.03.2022 stating that he is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.53,21,212/- out of Rs.70,94,950/- on or before 30.07.2022. He has invited attention of this Court to the order dated 24.05.2021, whereby the respondent No.2, who was ordered to be released on regular bail, has submitted that the conditions as mentioned in the said order are violated as he has not deposited any amount. He has further submitted that accordingly the applicant-complainant had filed an application for cancellation of bail however, the same has been rejected by the order dated 08.09.2021. Learned advocate has submitted that the bail granted to the respondent No.2 is required to be cancelled and the orders dated 08.09.2021 as well as 24.05.2021 are required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent No.2- original accused No.1, while inviting attention of this Court has submitted that the respondent No.2 had also filed the affidavit dated 16.03.2022 in the present application, wherein he has stated that he will make payment of Rs.5,00,000/- on or before 31.03.2022 and further payment of Rs.10,00,000/- will be paid on or before 30.04.2022 and remaining amount of Rs.38,21,212/- will be paid on or before 30.07.2022. Learned advocate, upon instructions of the respondent No.2, has submitted that as per Page 2 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:45:58 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/18707/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022 the instructions, he has not deposited any amount.
5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.
6. An F.I.R being C.R. No.11191040210465 of 2021 was registered before Sardarnagar Police Station Ahmedabad City, Dist. Ahmedabad for the offences under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506(2), 294(b) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the respondent-accused and others. Respondent No.2 - accused - Pravinbhai Ravabhai Rabari was released on regular bail vide order dated 24.05.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.3410 of 2021 on following condition:
"Main Condition:
The applicant-accused shall deposit 25% of the outstanding amount i.e. Rs.70,94,950/- as per the argument and contentions of the petition within one month from today and the remaining 50% amount (deducting 25% of the amount already paid by the applicant-accused) shall be deposited within three months from the date of this order."
6.1 Thus, the direction and condition issued in the said order was that the respondent No.2- accused shall deposit 25% of the outstanding amount i.e. Rs.70,94,950/- within a period of one month and the remaining amount was directed to be deposited within a period of three months.
Page 3 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:45:58 IST 2022R/CR.MA/18707/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022
7. Since, the said condition was not honoured by the respondent No.2-accused, the complainant- first informant filed Criminal Misc. Application No.5749 of 2021 seeking cancellation of bail. By the order dated 08.09.2021, Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.30), City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, rejected the application by observing that the said condition was incorporated only in view of the submissions of the learned advocate and violation of the directions, which are issued on such statement, cannot be construed adverse, and the bail cannot be cancelled. Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, while passing the impugned order, has placed reliance on the judgement in case of Mahersing or His Successor In Office Intelligence Officer vs. Pradipkumar Bharatlal Poddar Director of M/s Suvidha, 2004 (4) G.L.R. 3332. This Court has perused the said judgement. On perusal of the said judgement, it is realised by me that the law enunciated by this Court in the said judgement will not apply even remotely to the facts of the present case. Reliance placed on the judgement is absolutely ill-conceived. The facts of the said case suggest that it was a case of duty evasion under the customs law, and the concerned Magistrate had imposed a condition of pre-deposit of cash of the alleged duty evasion.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the observations made in the order dated 08.09.2021 is Page 4 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:45:58 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/18707/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022 absolutely perverse and illegal. The aforementioned condition is incorporated in the order dated 24.05.2021 on a specific statement made before the Court. Such statement has resulted in issuing the directions of paying the amount. Once a benefit has been obtained on the basis of a statement making a commitment before the Court of law, there is no other option left with such person but to make good the commitment or to forego his benefit. Such a commitment partakes the colour of order and directions of a court of law and the same has to be honoured. It was expected from the respondent- accused to fulfill and abide by the directions. On such condition only, he has been released on bail and he has been enjoying his freedom. Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the order dated 08.09.2021, has miserably failed in not appreciating the aforesaid fact and in a very mechanical manner and on a perverse ground, has rejected the application seeking cancellation of bail. If such an approach is permitted then every accused will get himself released on bail by making false statements and his subsequent conduct from resiling from such statement will be a blessing for him. There will be no sanctity attached to the proceedings of the Court, and the accused will be roaming freely without complying with the directions. Non-fulfillment of the commitment or withdrawal from the statement cannot dilute the directions issued by a Court of law.
Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:45:58 IST 2022R/CR.MA/18707/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022
9. This Court, in order to test bona fide of the applicant, vide order dated 06.04.2022 had directed the respondent No.2-original accused No.1 to deposit an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on or before 27.04.2022 before the trial Court. However, it is admitted that no such amount is deposited.
10. It is noticed that the respondent No.2- accused has been enjoying his freedom in view of the order dated 24.05.2021, without complying with the condition mentioned therein and despite the order passed by this Court on 06.04.2022, not a single rupee has been deposited by him. There are serious allegations made against the respondent-accused of siphoning away a sum Rs.70,94,950/- on the promise of making the first informant as a partner in the petrol pump. It is also alleged that the accused have forged the signatures of the heir - Tulsiben and have operated the bank account and have paid the VAT and GST.
11. Under the circumstances and in light of the aforesaid glaring facts, this Court has no other option but to cancel the bail granted to the respondent No.2-Original accused No.1 vide order dated 24.05.2021 in Criminal Misc. Application No.3410 of 2021 passed by the City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. The impugned order dated 08.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.5749 of 2021 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Page 6 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:45:58 IST 2022R/CR.MA/18707/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2022 The bail bonds are canceled. The respondent No.2- accused is directed to surrender immediately.
12. The present application stands allowed. Rule made absolute.
13. Registry shall forward this order to the concerned learned Judge, who has passed the impugned order.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NVMEWADA
Page 7 of 7
Downloaded on : Thu May 05 20:45:58 IST 2022