Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Piyushbhai Dineshbhai Kasawala vs State Of Gujarat on 13 April, 2022

Author: A. S. Supehia

Bench: A.S. Supehia

     R/CR.MA/4848/2022                                      ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4848 of 2022
==========================================================
                         PIYUSHBHAI DINESHBHAI KASAWALA
                                      Versus
                                STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAL UNWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS TEJAL A VASHI(2704)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR H K PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                                 Date : 13/04/2022
                                  ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.11199056220023 of 2022 registered with Vagra Police Station, District Bharuch for the offences under Sections 284, 336, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

3. It is the case of the applicant that he is a partner of Green Paradise Pigment LLP, which was formed on 06.03.2017. The said LLP is into the business of production, manufacturing, import export and dealer of paint, distemper, pigments, writing, printing and inks of all other kinds. The applicant is holding the valid license for Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 13 21:39:59 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/4848/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022 carrying on its business activities and the same is valid till 31.12.2025. The LLP has been into the business of manufacturing of synthetic organic chemicals and has a plant at Dahej, Bharuch. It had also obtained a valid environment clearance dated 26.11.2018 with respect to setting-up of manufacturing plant at Bharuch from State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Gujarat. It had made applications on two occasions with respect to amendment to consent to establish for increment in production capacity of pigment, which came to be approved by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board by letter/order dated 29.09.2018 and 18.06.2019. On 13.12.2019, the LLP executed an agreement for supply of alluminium chloride solution (by- product) with M/s. Roopam Textile, Ahmedabad, by which M/s. Roopam Textile shall purchase or buy the raw material i.e. alluminium chloride solution for neutralization of effluent. Before and after the date of offence, the applicant's firm was selling its by-product to M/s. Roopam Textile. The GPCB had passed a closure order under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for the incident of 16.05.2021, when cyclone TAUKTAE had hit the various districts of Gujarat State, of making false manifest. After considering the reply of the LLP, the said closure order was revoked by the GPCB vide its Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 13 21:39:59 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/4848/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022 order in February, 2022. The raw material was seized as a muddamal by the Investigating Officer. One of the partners of the firm had applied for release of the said raw material. The Magistrate has released the said muddamal.

4. Learned senior advocate Mr.Unwala on behalf of the applicant has submitted that there was no occasion for the applicant for manifest since he was having valid Memorandum of Association of M/s.Roopam Textile for neutralizing the affluent.

4.1 Learned senior advocate for the applicant submitted that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. He further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, as well as trial also and will not flee from justice.

4.2 Learned senior advocate for the applicant, on instructions, submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of investigating agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He further submitted that upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant accused to oppose such Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 13 21:39:59 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/4848/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022 application on merits may be kept open. Learned senior advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted bail.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He, upon instructions of the Investigating Officer and after verification of the investigation report, has submitted that the manifest is found to be forged however, he is unable to dispute the said manifest containing the name of M/s.Roopam Textile, where the affluent was being delivered for neutralization.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

7. This Court has considered following aspects;

(a) that there is a delay of 9 months in registering the F.I.R.;

(b) that there is nothing found to connect the applicant with the offence;

R/CR.MA/4848/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022

(c) that the firm has a valid agreement with M/s.Roopam Textile for purchase of raw material for neutralization of effluent;

(d) that a closure order under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has been revoked after considering the reply of the firm of the applicant;

(e) Prima facie considering the facts of the case, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary at this stage;

Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant.

8. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (Nct of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 831 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312.

9. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR being C.R.No.11199056220023 of 2022 registered with Vagra Police Station, District Bharuch on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that he :

R/CR.MA/4848/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022

(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 19.04.2022 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;

(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week.

10. Despite this order, it would be open for the investigating agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant, if he considers it proper and just and the Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 13 21:39:59 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/4848/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022 Magistrate would decide if on merits. The applicant shall remain present before the concerned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the concerned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the concerned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this bail order.

11. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

12. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned authority/court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.

R/CR.MA/4848/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/04/2022

13. Learned advocate for the applicant is also permitted to send a copy of this order to the concerned authority/court through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) NVMEWADA Page 8 of 8 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 13 21:39:59 IST 2022