Gujarat High Court
Sanjay vs State on 13 April, 2010
Author: H.B.Antani
Bench: H.B.Antani
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2319/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2319 of 2010
=========================================================
SANJAY
RAGHUBHAI RAJPUT - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JM PANCHAL FOR MR RITURAJ M MEENA
for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR
DIVYESH SEJPAL APP
for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 13/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail by the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R.No.I-151 of 2009 with Sarkhej police station for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 3 of the Benami Transactions Act.
2. Learned advocate Mr.J.M. Panchal for Mr.Rituraj M. Meena for the applicant submitted that the applicant sold a house for an amount of Rs.17,25,000/- to one Hetalben, who is incidentally daughter of one of the co-accused, namely, Khimjibhai. The so-called amount of Rs.17,25,000/-, given to the applicant by Hetalben for purchase of house, was, in fact, the same money which was earned by the main accused by way of fraudulent scheme, as mentioned in the F.I.R. The amount of Rs.12,22,500/- has already been recovered from the applicant. The chargesheet in the matter is filed on 28.10.2009. The applicant was not aware about the fact that the amount of consideration given to him for purchase of house was the same money which was used in the fraudulent scheme of the main accused. The house in question which is alleged to have been sold to the daughter of the co-accused was purchased in the year 2007 for an amount of Rs.75,000/- whereas, F.I.R. was filed in the year 2009. It is submitted that the daughter of the co-accused approached the applicant for buying the said house for an amount of Rs.80,000/- which was agreed by the applicant. In pursuance of the said agreement, the applicant got the documents ready as the same were required to be executed for completing the sale. The applicant was not aware of the fact that the amount of consideration of Rs.80,000/- which was received by him was, in fact, the same amount which was collected from the general public in contravention of Section 3 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. It is only at the time of his arrest, the applicant came to know of the said offence and thus, the applicant is nowhere connected with the activity of any principle accused and he was not aware of the origin of the money in question. Considering the role attributed to the applicant which is reflected in the F.I.R. at Annexure A to the application, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned A.P.P. Mr.Divyesh Sejpal, representing the respondent-State, while opposing the bail application, submitted that the applicant is involved in the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 3 of the Benami Transactions Act. Considering the nature of offence and the manner in which the said offence is committed by the applicant along with the other accused, no discretionary relief be granted to him and the application be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned advocate Mr.J.M. Panchal for Mr.Rituraj M. Meena for the applicant and learned A.P.P. Mr.Divyesh Sejpal for the respondent-State at length and in great detail. I have considered the averments made in the application, role attributed to the applicant which is reflected in the F.I.R. at Annexure A to the application and police papers produced for my perusal. On perusal of the statement of witnesses, role attributed to the applicant is clearly borne out. It is strenuously urged by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant was not aware of the fact that the amount of Rs.80,000/- which was used by him in consideration of the house was, in fact, the same amount which was collected from the general public in contravention of Section 3 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. Even on perusal of the statement of witnesses, more particularly, statement of Hetalben, the amount was obtained by her father through deceit with a view to multiply the amount three times. The applicant used to meet Ashok Jadeja to render help to him and that fact has emerged from the perusal of papers produced by the learned A.P.P. Thus, the active role played by the applicant cannot be brushed aside in the present case. I have considered the provisions of Sections 406, 420, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 3 of the Benami Transactions Act, manner in which the alleged offence is committed by the applicant along with the other accused and quantum of punishment etc. Considering the aforesaid aspect, the applicant, in my view, is not entitled to claim discretionary relief as prayed for in the application.
5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the application preferred by the applicant and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(H.B.ANTANI, J.) Hitesh Top