Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Sachin Ramchandra Rane & 2 vs State Of Gujarat on 24 January, 2014

Author: Anant S. Dave

Bench: Anant S. Dave

         R/CR.MA/16863/2013                                          ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL ) NO. 
                                16863 of 2013

==============================================================
            SACHIN RAMCHANDRA RANE  &  2....Applicant(s)
                             Versus
                 STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
=============================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 ­ 3
MS HANSA PUNANI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==============================================================

         CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE


          Date : 24/01/2014


ORAL ORDER

1. This   application   is   filed   under   Section   438   of   the   Code   of  Criminal   Procedure   in   connection   with   first   information   report  registered at C.R. No. I­3 of 2013 with D.C.B. Police Station, District: 

Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 406420120B323506(2) and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of  Prize Chit and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978. 

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants  are neither the Director nor in any capacity are connected with Astha  Group of Companies   and their role was to supply their products and  other   items   as   demanded   by   the   Astha   Group   of   Companies.   It   is  submitted   that   two   other   co­accused   are   considered   for   Anticipatory  Bail by the co­ordinate Bench vide order dated 27.09.2013   [Coram : A.   Page 1 of 6 R/CR.MA/16863/2013 ORDER J. DesaI, J.] passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12944 of 2013. In  addition  to  the above,   learned  advocate for  the applicants  submitted  that on the basis of additional affidavit filed before this Court about the  legal   status   of   the   Company   registered   with   Registrar   of   Companies  under the Companies Act, 1956, an agreement entered into with the  State Bank of India, registered with Government of Goa under the Food  Safety   and   Standards   Act,   2006   and   possessing   Export   and   Import  licence issued by the Central government along with balance sheets of  the relevant years and transaction that have taken place so far with the  suppliers.   It   is,  further   submitted  that  the  none of  the  applicants  is  Director or in any manner connected with Astha Group of Companies  or even Blue Bird Wine in legal capacity and holding any position in the  Company. It  is, therefore, submitted that bearing supply of goods to  Astha Group of  Companies, no role of  the applicants surface on  the  record   and,   therefore   they   are   available   for   investigation   and   having  their   permanent   residence   in   the   State   of   Goa,   having   movable   and  immovable property and no criminal antecedent, may be considered for  Anticipatory Bail. 

3. As   against   the   above,   Ms.   Hansa   Punani,   learned   APP   for   the  respondent   -   State   contended   that   the   applicants   have   nexus   with  Astha  Group  of   Companies  and  even  were  found  in  the  promotional  marketing event of Blue Bird Wine and in photographs are present. In  addition to above, even statement of witnesses and money circulation  scheme   floated.   The   Astha   Group   of   Companies   have   categorically  stated about the involvement of the applicants. Upon investigation so  far carried out it is revealed that the applicants are not found in the  State of Goa at the residence and it is further stated that Anticipatory  Page 2 of 6 R/CR.MA/16863/2013 ORDER Bail application preferred by other co­accused came to be rejected vide  order   dated   27.09.2013   [Coram   :   A.J.   Desai,   J.]   passed   in   Criminal  Misc.   Application   No.   11374   of   2013   and   other   allied   matters.   It   is  submitted that interrogation of the applicants is necessary in view of  the nature of allegations and the role so far surface on the record, and  no anticipatory bail can be granted.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the  record   of   the   case   and   upon   considering   overall   facts   and  circumstances of the case,  prima facie  on perusal of the record there  appears to be no nexus with Astha Group of Companies or Blue Bird  Wine, of the applicants except that photograph of applicant no. 1 in the  promotional marketing event by the Company. Besides, the applicants  are   Director   of   company   represented   by   the   applicants   namely  "Team24"   Marketing   India   Pvt.   Ltd.,   and   has   all   valid   and   legal  documents  registered under  the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006  are given Certificate of Importer­Exporter Code (IEC) by Government of  India,   Ministry   of   Commerce   and   Industry   with   a   Certificate   of  Incorporation  under   the  Companies   Act,   audited   balance   sheets   and  contract   of   supply   of   goods  and  other   dealings  appearing   on  record.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants are likely to skip the  investigation   and   particularly   by   imposing   conditions,   they   can   be  subjected to remain present before the Investigating Officer.  So far as  Anticipatory Bail rejected  by co­ordinate Bench where the  applicants  had nexus with Astha Group of Companies and were representing such  Company, no such case is noticed upon perusal of the police Papers.  Thus, taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am inclined to  grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.  This Court has also taken into  Page 3 of 6 R/CR.MA/16863/2013 ORDER consideration   the   law   laid   down   by   the   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of  Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.   Reported in [2011]1 SCC 694, wherein the Apex Court reiterated the  law   laid   down   by   the   Constitutional   Bench   in   the   case   of  Shri   Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Reported in [1980]2 SCC 565.

5. Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned  order.

6. In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the  event   of   the   applicants   herein   being   arrested   pursuant   to   FIR   being  C.R. No. I­3 of 2013 with D.C.B. Police Station, District: Surat,   the  applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.1 lakh  (Rupees   One   Lakh   only)   each   with   one   surety   of   like   amount   on  following conditions :­ [a] shall  cooperate  with  the  investigation  and  make  himself   available for interrogation whenever required. 

[b] shall   remain   present   at   concerned   Police   Station   on   10.02.2014 between 11:00 am to 2:00 pm:

[c] shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall   directly   or   indirectly   make   any   inducement,   threat   or   promise   to   any   witness   so   as   to   dissuade   them   from   disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;
[d] shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address   to   the  Investigating  Officer  and   the   Court  concerned   and   shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the   case or till further orders;

         [e]        will   not   leave   India   without   the   permission   of   the   Court  


                                            Page 4 of 6
              R/CR.MA/16863/2013                                              ORDER



and,   if   is   holding   a   Passport,   shall   surrender   the   same   before the trial Court immediately [f] It   would   be   open   to   the   Investigating   Officer   to   file   an   application  for remand,  if he considers  it just and proper   and the concerned Magistrate would decide it on merits.
[g] despite  this  order,  it  would  be  open  for  the  Investigating   Agency   to   apply   to   the   competent   Magistrate,   for   police   remand   of   the   applicants.   The   applicants   shall   remain   present  before  the learned  Magistrate  on the first date of   hearing   of   such   application   and   on   all   subsequent   occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate.   This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial   custody  for the  purpose  of entertaining  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   learned   Magistrate   to   consider   such   a   request   in   accordance   with   law.   It   is   clarified   that   the   applicants,   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 anticipatory bail order.
7. For modification and/or deletion of any of the conditions herein  above,   the   applicant/s   will   be   at   liberty   to   approach   the   concerned  Court   and   such   Court   shall   decide   the   application   for   modification  and/or deletion of any of the conditions of this order in accordance with  law.
8. At   the   trial,   the   trial   court   shall   not   be   influenced   by   the  observations   of   preliminary   nature,   qua   the   evidence   at   this   stage,  made by this Court while enlarging the applicants on bail.
9. Rule made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
Page 5 of 6
         R/CR.MA/16863/2013                            ORDER




10.   Direct service is permitted.




                                               (ANANT S.DAVE, J.) 
/phalguni/




                                 Page 6 of 6