Gujarat High Court
Puyush vs Public on 8 June, 2011
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
R/CR.MA/7483/2011
ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No 7483 of 2011
================================================================
PUYUSH
SURENDRABHAI VIRAMGAMA....Applicant(s)
Versus
PUBLIC
PROCECUTOR....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR
ND NANAVATI, LD. SENIOR COUNSEL with MR PR ABICHANDANI as ADVOCATE
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR
SANDEEP N BHATT as ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR
JK SHAH, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 08/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Rule. Learned APP Mr. J.K.Shah, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of State.
This is an application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for regular bail in connection with offence registered with Dahej Police Station, Dist. Bharuch vide CR No.I-45 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 466, 468, 471, 472, 474 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.
Prima facie it appears from the case of the prosecution that the accused applicant in collusion with other accused created false licenses, which are freely transferable. It is the case of the prosecution that the persons or businessmen who are exporting goods are given certain credit and Director General of Foreign Trade are issuing freely transferable licenses and the persons in whose favour such licenses are issued can utilize the same at the time of importing the goods and if any credit remains, the same can be freely transferred in favour of others. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused applicant and one another co-accused in connivance with each other created false licenses and the said licenses were ultimately transferred through different traders and finally the same were utilized by M/s.Hindalco Industries Ltd., while importing certain goods. The false licenses were obtained by the first informant through the accused and same were transferred to M/s.Hindalco Industries Ltd. It appears that before lodging of the present First Information Report DRI thought fit to arrest the accused applicant. He was interrogated. However, DRI could not file complaint within stipulated period of time and, therefore, the accused herein was ordered to be enlarged on bail under the provisions of Section 167 of the Code. After his release the present FIR has been lodged by one of those Companies to whom the licenses were handed over who in turn transferred the same to multinational Company - M/s.Hindalco Industries Ltd.,Dahej. M/s.Hindalco Industries Ltd., also appears to have used the licenses. It is the case of the prosecution that as the licenses were not genuine and business was carried on the basis of said licenses which caused loss of public exchequer of substantial amount. However, it appears that the entire loss sustained by the Department has been made good by M/s.Hindalco Industries Ltd., Dahej.
In this background I am persuaded to exercise discretion in favour of the accused applicant taking into consideration the following aspects :
(A) All the offences are magistrate triable offences.
(B) The investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed.
(C) The financial loss caused to the Department appears to have been made good by M/s.Hindalco Industries Ltd., Dahej.
(D) It appears that now Civil Suit have also been filed by M/s.Hindalco Industries Ltd., Dahej, in this regard.
(E) The accused applicant is a permanent resident of Rajkot. He is residing at Rajkot with is family.
(F) No apprehension of accused person fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution witnesses is expressed.
(G) The entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence.
In this view of the matter, I am persuaded to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused applicant. Under the circumstances, accused-applicant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail in connection with offence registered with Dahej Police Station, being C.R.No.I-45 of 2010 on executing bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to the conditions that he shall :
a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
c) surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
e) shall not indulge in any activity and if having found in such activity the bail shall stand automatically cancelled.
f) furnish the present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
While enlarging the accused applicant on default bail vide order dated 26.7.2010 the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad has already directed the accused applicant to mark his presence every Monday before the Intelligence Officer, DRI, Zonal Unit Office, Ahmedabad. In this view of the matter, no condition as regards marking of presence in connection with the present FIR is passed. The accused applicant is directed scrupulously to follow and comply with the condition imposed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, while releasing him on default bail.
The authorities will release the applicant only if not required in connection with any other offence for the time being.
If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.
Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case.
It goes without saying that any observations touching the merits of the case, purely for the purpose of deciding the question of grant of bail and shall not be construed as an expression of the final opinion in the main matter.
Rule made absolute.
Direct Service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) kks Page 6 of 6 Top