Gujarat High Court
Dashrathbhai Bholidas Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 17 February, 2021
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 20180 of 2020
==========================================================
DASHRATHBHAI BHOLIDAS PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MUKUL ROHATGI WITH MS DEVANSHI SINGH WITH MR ANKIT B
PANDYA(5906) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MITESH AMIN, SENIOR COUNSEL AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WITH
MR RB RAVAL, APP(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 17/02/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (`the Code' for short) for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.11191020201399 registered with Vastrapur police station, Ahmedabad city for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 325, 323, 294(b), 506(2), 354A and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The said FIR came to be filed on 16.8.2020. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer had filed a report on 17.8.2020 and requested the learned Magistrate to add Section 307 of Indian Penal Code in the FIR. The same has been accepted. Thereafter, another report dated 28.8.2020 has been filed by the Investigating Officer with a Page 1 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER request to add Sections 365, 384, 342, 199 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code.
CRUX OF THE FIR:
2. The first informant filed the said FIR against her husband and three others and she has mainly stated in the said FIR that she got married with the original accused no.1 in the year 2011 and a girl child namely Arya was born out of the said wedlock. It is alleged that one year after the marriage, the original accused no.1 started mentally and physically harassing the first informant. It is mainly alleged that on the occasion of the birthday of the daughter of the first informant i.e. on 1.8.2020 at around 11.00 p.m., when she, along with her other relatives were present, original accused nos.2 and 3 started taunting the first informant that she did not bring anything from her parental house. Thereafter, the original accused no.4 who is the father of the first informant, gave abuses to the first informant. It is also alleged that because of the instigation done at the behest of original accused no.4, original accused no.1 started quarreling with the first informant and gave abuses to the mother of the first informant.
When the first informant tried to stop the original accused no.1-husband from speaking Page 2 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER abusive language, it is alleged that original
accused no.1-husband had given six-seven slaps on her face and fist blow on her nose. It is alleged that the accused persons in connivance with each other, thrown the first informant and her mother out of the house and gave threats that if she will file police complaint, she will be done to death.
3. Heard learned senior counsel Mr.Mukul Rohatgi assisted by learned counsel Ms.Devanshi Singh and learned counsel Mr.Ankit Pandya for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Mitesh Amin for the respondent-State.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:
4. Learned senior counsel Mr.Rohatgi appearing for the applicant has submitted that as per the case of the first informant, a domestic quarrel took place late at night at around 11 p.m. between the first informant and other accused who were present at the place of incident. In the said incident, the husband had beaten up the first informant and therefore the first informant informed the concerned police on telephone. It is submitted that thereafter, after a period of 15 days i.e. on 16.8.2020, FIR in question has been filed with the Vastrapur police Page 3 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER station. It is submitted that the applicant who is the uncle-in-law of the first informant is not named in the FIR.
4.1 At this stage, learned senior counsel submits that the present applicant filed written complaint on 16.8.2020 against Fizu Maunang Patel-first informant of the present FIR and Jankiben Mukeshbhai Patel - mother of Fizu. In the said complaint, present applicant had levelled various allegations against the aforesaid two persons.
4.2 Learned senior counsel thereafter contended that further statement of the first informant was recorded on 28.8.2020 wherein for the first time, she has levelled allegations against the present applicant. With the said further statement, she has narrated the incident which had taken place on 24.8.2020. It has been mainly alleged that one Jankitbhai Prajapati came at the residence of the first informant and told her that the present applicant has sent him and she was called at the office of Jankitbhai. When she reached at the office of Jankitbhai, the applicant was present and it is alleged that the present applicant and other persons who were present there gave threats to the first informant and she was forced to sign certain documents. Her Page 4 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER mother was also forced to sign documents and original documents are kept by the applicant and others. It is submitted that on the basis of the said allegation, report was submitted by the Investigating Officer with a request to add Sections 365, 384, 342, 199 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code.
4.3 Learned senior counsel would contend that no mention was made in the said statement with regard to the cash money of Rs.2.54 crores received by her nor she had made any reference with regard to the Demand Drafts received by her and her mother. At this stage, from the record, it is pointed out that the Demand Drafts were received by Jankiben-mother of the first informant on 28.8.2020. It is also contended that the first informant had contradicted her own version of the incident that took place on 24.8.2020 wherein in the written complaint, she alleges that when Mr.Jankitbhai Prajapati had come to her house, she was not at home. However, in the complaint dated 28.8.2020, she stated that when Jankitbhai came to her mother's house and took her and her daughter, she followed them in her own car. It is submitted that Jankitbhai who allegedly `forcibly' took her mother and daughter to office has not been made an accused and he is cited as witness.
Page 5 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER 4.4 Learned senior counsel Mr.Rohatgi
further submits that cash of Rs.2.54 crores was recovered by the Investigating Officer from the house of Jankiben's sister-Neemaben, maternal aunt of first informant. In the statement of the said witness, she states that her sister i.e. Jankiben had given her money for safe keeping while mentioning the dispute and the incident between the family members. It is further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the money and documents were thrust upon the first informant, however, if this was the case, the first informant and her mother would have gone to the police and complained of the same or atleast mentioned it later in the further complaint filed by them before the police.
4.5 At this stage, learned senior counsel would further point out that two Demand Drafts that were allegedly forcibly thrust upon the first informant and her mother were encashed by the first informant just a few days before the said Demand Drafts were due to expire for the fear that they would otherwise expire. It is further submitted that from the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor, it is learnt that the day before the said Demand Drafts were encashed, Page 6 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER the first informant had intimated to the police that she is being pressurized by her husband and father-in-law to deposit the Demand Drafts. The said conduct of the first informant of remaining silent with regard to the Demand Drafts for nearly three months and suddenly intimating the police about the same one day before encashing them shows malafide on the part of the first informant.
4.6 Thus, learned senior counsel contended that the story of the prosecution that the applicant has given threats and forced the first informant and mother to sign certain documents for the purpose of settling the disputes may not be believed by this Court.
4.7 Learned senior counsel Mr.Rohatgi would further contend that other four co-accused have been either enlarged on anticipatory bail or on regular bail and therefore on the ground of parity, the case of the applicant be considered. At this stage, it is pointed out that mother-in- law of the first informant namely Mayurikaben Patel has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the concerned Sessions Court. On the very same day, another co-accused Mukeshbhai Patel-father of the first informant was also enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. At this Page 7 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER stage, it is pointed out that the original accused no.1-Maunang Patel-husband of the first informant was enlarged on bail vide order dated 13.1.2021 by this Court. It is further submitted that thereafter another co-accused Virendra Patel-cousin of the original accused no.1 has been enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 22.1.2021 by the concerned Sessions Court, copy of the aforesaid orders are placed on record along with written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant.
4.8 Learned senior counsel thereafter submitted that the applicant is aged about 61 years. He is suffering from heavy diabetes and blood pressure and also has been advised to get surgery of piles. He has lost almost 20 kgs.weight in the past five months in custody. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 26.10.2020 and now the chargesheet is filed and therefore looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the present case, the applicant be enlarged on bail.
DECISIONS RELIED ON BY LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:
ON THE GROUND OF PARITY:
1. Izharul Haq Adbul Hamid Shaikh V/s State of Page 8 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER Gujarat, reported in (2009)5 SCC 283.
2. Rajesh Gandhi V/s State of Jharkhand being Criminal Appeal No.1041 of 2001, arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.3182 of 2001)
3. Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar V/s Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 23.
4. Vikas Chawla V/s The State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in SLP (Cri.)6023 of 2020.
ON THE GROUND OF GRANT BAIL AFTER FILING OF CHARGESHEET:
1. Sanjay Chandra V/s Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012)1 SCC 40.
2. Abhishek Anand V/s State of Bihar being SLP (Cri.) 1568 of 2020 BAIL IS GENERAL RULE AND JAIL IS AN EXCEPTION:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dataram Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2018)3 SCC 22, has held that bail is a general rule and jail is an exception.
4.9 Learned senior counsel Mr.Rohatgi submits that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions that this Court may impose while enlarging the applicant on bail. It is, therefore, urged that Page 9 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER the applicant be enlarged on regular bail.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:
5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel and Public Prosecutor Mr.Amin appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed this application. It is contended that though the applicant is not named in the FIR, during the course of investigation, it has been revealed that the applicant has committed alleged offences and therefore report was submitted to the concerned Magistrate by the Investigating Officer and after the arrest of the applicant, the chargesheet is lodged against the applicant in which there is overwhelming material available implicating the applicant-accused in the offences alleged against him. Thus, it is contended that there is a primafacie case made out by the prosecution against the applicant for committing the alleged offence.
5.1 At this stage, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that when the FIR is filed by the original first informant on 16.8.2020 with Vastrapur police station, on the very day, the present applicant gave written complaint against the original first informant namely Fizu Maunang Patel and her mother Jankiben for the alleged Page 10 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 387, 389, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the copy of the said complaint which is produced on record at page 73 of the said compilation. From the allegations made in the said written complaint, it is contended that the applicant was having knowledge about the registration of the FIR which was filed by the original first informant Fizu Patel. It is further revealed from the aforesaid written complaint that the applicant was present at the time of the incident. Thus, it is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that the applicant-accused has attempted to misled the investigating agency by giving such written complaint against the original first informant Fizu Patel and her mother.
5.2 Learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Amin would thereafter submit that the original first informant gave written complaint to PI, Vastrapur Police Station wherein she has narrated the incident of 24.8.2020. In the said written complaint also, role of the present applicant in execution of the various documents under threat and coercion is specifically narrated by her. At this stage, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that further statement of the original Page 11 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER first informant was recorded on 28.8.2020, copy of which is placed on record at page 34 wherein also she has specifically alleged against the applicant and it is alleged that the applicant has given threats to the first informant and her mother and were compelled to execute certain documents. The said documents are in the nature of affidavit, deed of divorce, deed of relinquishment of first informant's right over family property. The said documents were kept by the applicant herein. It is further submitted that the aforesaid further statement of the first informant is supported by witness Jankitbhai Prajapati whose statement is placed on record at page 45 and another witness Aalap Patel whose statement is placed on record at page 47.
5.3 At this stage, learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Amin has also referred the panchanama, copy of which is placed on record at page 36 which is drawn by Crime Branch Police Station, Ahmedabad city in which it is stated that on 27.8.2020, cash worth Rs.2.54 crores was recovered from the house of Neemaben i.e. maternal aunt of the original first informant. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid panchanama, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the allegations leveled by the first informant in her further statement are supported by the aforesaid recovery Page 12 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER of cash amount.
5.4 At this stage, it is further contended that the aforesaid documents, though in existence, are not recovered/not shown by the present applicant. Thus, the applicant has either destroyed the said documents or the applicant is hiding the said documents from the investigating agency. At this stage, it is pointed out from the separate compilation given by learned Public Prosecutor that the co-accused has produced the affidavit of the original first informant in the application filed by him under Section 438 of the Code. The said affidavit is filed on 24.8.2020. Thus, it is contended that the case of the first informant that she was compelled to sign certain documents is supported by the said affidavit which was placed on record by the co-accused in the application filed under Section 438 of the Code.
5.5 Learned Public Prosecutor thereafter contended that there are two further FIRs registered against the applicant - one is before Vastrapur police station and another is registered at Sola High Court Police Station. Learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the said FIRs, copy of the same are placed on record along with the affidavit filed by the Senior Police Inspector in the present matter. At this Page 13 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER stage, it is clarified that with regard to the FIR which is registered at Sola High Court Police Station, this Court has granted protection to the applicant in the application filed under Section 482 of the Code, however, the Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit on 10.1.2021 in which it is stated that the applicant as well as other co-accused have not cooperated with the Investigating Officer and therefore it is requested that interim relief granted in favour of the present applicant be vacated. Learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the said affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer filed in Scr.A. No.7370 of 2020.
5.6 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the first informant was compelled to deposit two Demand Drafts on 23.11.2020 and for the same, she has already filed application/complaint on 23.11.2020 which is under investigation.
5.7 Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigating agency has reasonable apprehension on the basis of the aforesaid facts of the present case that the applicant-accused will tamper with the witnesses or he will give threats to the first informant and the witnesses.
It is further submitted that looking to the Page 14 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER
antecedents of the applicant, this Court may not exercise discretion in favour of the present applicant.
5.8 Learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Amin also submits that the order passed by this Court in the case of co-accused Maunang Patel as well as the order passed by the Sessions Court in the case of Virendra Amrutlal Patel would not render any assistance to the present applicant. It is pointed out from the record that role attributed to the present applicant is far more serious than the aforesaid two co-accused and therefore once the role of the applicant-accused is strikingly dissimilar, parity would not be applicable. Thus, the decisions upon which the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
5.9 Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami V/s The State of Maharashtra and others being Criminal Appeal No.742 of 2020.
5.10 Learned Public Prosecutor Mr.Amin, therefore, urged that this application be dismissed.
Page 15 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
6. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record as well as the decisions upon which the reliance is placed by learned counsels for the parties, it would emerge that the original first informant has filed the FIR against her husband and others with Vastrapur police station, Ahmedabad city for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 325, 294(b), 506(2), 354A and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The said FIR has been filed on 16.8.2020. On 17.8.2020, a report was submitted by the Investigating Officer with a request to add Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the present applicant has been arraigned as an accused and on the basis of the incident which had taken place on 24.8.2020, the investigating agency has submitted a report to the concerned Magistrate with a request to add the offences punishable under Sections 365, 384, 342, 199 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. The chargesheet is also filed under the aforesaid provisions. It is pertinent to note that the original first informant has given the written complaint on 27.8.2020 to the Police Inspector, Vastrapur police station about the incident which had taken place on 24.8.2020 and Page 16 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER thereafter on 28.8.2020, her further statement was recorded. If the further statement of the first informant is carefully seen, it is revealed that she has specifically alleged against the present applicant that threats were administered by the applicant and thereafter signatures of the first informant and her mother were obtained on certain documents including the divorce paper, affidavit and relinquishment deed. It is also pertinent to note that the version given by the first informant is supported by the statement of other two witnesses namely Jankitbhai Prajapati as well as Aalap Patel. Thus, from the aforesaid material, it is revealed that the prosecution has made out prima facie case against the applicant.
6.1 At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that cash worth Rs.2.54 crores was recovered from the house of Nimaben i.e. maternal aunt of the first informant. Panchanama was drawn by Crime Branch Police Station. Thereafter, two demand drafts given by the applicant which were issued from the joint account of the applicant and mother-in-law of the first informant have been deposited by the first informant under the pressure. For the said incident also, she has given written complaint to the concerned police authority which is still under investigation. Thus, from the aforesaid material collected by Page 17 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER the investigating agency, it is prima facie revealed that on 24.8.2020, the applicant herein has, under pressure, obtained signatures of the first informant and her mother.
6.2 It is further revealed from the record that when the applicant came to know about filing of the FIR by the first informant against her in- laws, the applicant immediately went to the Vastrapur police station and gave written complaint dated 16.8.2020 against first informant and her mother wherein he has made certain allegations against both of them. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the said written complaint was given by the applicant with a view to misguide the investigating agency. Thus, while considering the case of the applicant, this conduct is also required to be kept in view by this Court.
6.3 As observed hereinabove, even after giving the written complaint on 16.8.2020 against the first informant and her mother, the applicant sent one Jankitbhai Prajapati to the house of the first informant and under the threats, the first informant, her daughter and mother of the first informant were brought to the office of Jankitbhai Prajapati. At the office of the said witness, the applicant was present and he has Page 18 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER influenced the first informant and witnesses by giving threats. Thus, at the time of considering the case of the applicant for grant of bail, this conduct is also required to be kept in view.
6.4 It is the contention of learned senior counsel Mr.Rohatgi appearing for the applicant that the first informant had not made any reference with regard to the cash amount or demand drafts received by her and her mother in her further statement which was recorded on 28.8.2020. It is true that in the said statement, the first informant has not stated about the money received by her and her mother, however, the fact remains that Rs.2.54 crores was recovered from the maternal aunt of the first informant and it is the specific case of the prosecution that the said amount was given by the applicant. Two demand drafts, one for Rs.2 crores and another for Rs.50 lacs, were received by the mother of the first informant and thereafter on 23.11.2020, the said Demand Drafts were deposited by the first informant. Thus, the applicant has tried to influence the witnesses by giving threats.
6.5 It is further revealed from the record that the applicant forced the first informant and her mother to sign certain documents. However, it Page 19 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER is specifically alleged by the prosecution that the applicant has either destroyed the said document or the applicant is hiding the same from the investigating agency. However, one of such documents was produced by co-accused Maunang Patel in the application filed by him under Section 438 of the Code before this Court. The said document is affidavit of the first informant which was executed on 24.8.2020, copy of the same is produced on record by way of separate compilation by learned Public Prosecutor. Thus, from the aforesaid document/affidavit, it is clear that the allegation levelled by the first informant against the applicant about the incident which had taken place on 24.8.2020 is supported by the said affidavit.
6.6 At this stage, even if it is to be assumed that the dispute was amicably settled on 24.8.2020 and therefore the first informant has signed certain documents including affidavit, divorce deed, relinquishment of her right from the property of her husband and in-laws etc. and for the said settlement, cash as well as demand drafts were given to the first informant, even then, it is pertinent to note that the documents which were signed by the first informant and her mother are not produced by the applicant. One of such documents i.e. the affidavit of the first Page 20 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER informant which was produced in the proceedings filed by her husband under Section 438 of the Code before this Court, was placed on record by the learned Public Prosecutor for perusal of this Court at the time of hearing of this application. Thus, from the conduct of the applicant, it can be said that the documents which were signed by the first informant either under coercion or because of the amicable settlement are either destroyed by him or the applicant is hiding the said documents. Thus, in the facts of the present case, this conduct of the present applicant is required to be kept in mind.
6.7 Learned senior counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court as well as the Sessions Court in the case of co-accused and thereafter contended that on the ground of parity, the applicant be enlarged on bail. However, it is required to be noted at this stage that so far as the case of co-accused Maunang Ramanbhai Patel-husband of the first informant is concerned, this Court, while enlarging him on bail has specifically observed that against the said co-accused, the allegation for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is made which is punishable with three years imprisonment. It is further observed that for the alleged offences punishable Page 21 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the only allegation against the said co-accused is that he has abetted the other co- accused-his father namely Ramanbhai Patel. It is further observed by this Court that there is no previous history of criminal antecedents reported against the co-accused and even as per the case of the prosecution, the said co-accused was used as a tool by his father and uncle i.e. the present applicant for committing the alleged offence. Thus, the aforesaid order would not render any assistance to the present applicant. Further, the other co-accused mother-in-law of the first informant was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court looking to the role attributed to her. Similarly, another co-accused i.e. father of the first informant was also enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, however,the role attributed to him is also totally different. Therefore, the aforesaid orders would not be helpful to the present applicant. Another co-accused Virendra Amrutlal Patel-cousin of the husband of the first informant was enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court. However, the role attributed to him is also different and as contended by learned Public Prosecutor, the role attributed to the present applicant is strikingly dissimilar to that of other co-accused.
Page 22 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER 6.8 Thus, on the facts of the present case,
the ground of parity would not be available to the applicant and therefore the decisions upon which the reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the applicant would not render any assistance to him.
6.9 From the record, it is revealed that there are two other FIRs registered against the applicant. Thus, there is history of criminal antecedents against the applicant. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant contends that both the aforesaid FIRs are registered after the filing of the FIR in question. However, this Court has to consider the filing of two other FIRs against the applicant while exercising the powers under Section 439 of the Code.
PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CITATIONS UPON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED AND THEIR APPLICABILITY TO THE PRESENT CASE:
7. In the case of Arnab Goswami (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 57 as under:
"57. While considering an application for the grant of bail under Article 226 in a suitable case, the High Court must consider the settled factors which emerge from the precedents of this Court. These factors can Page 23 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER be summarized as follows:
(i) The nature of the alleged offence, the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of a conviction;
(ii) Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the witnesses or being a threat to the complainant or the witnesses;
(iii) The possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial or the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;
(iv) The antecedents of and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(v) Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence are made out, on the basis of the allegations as they stand, in the FIR; and
(vi) The significant interests of the public or the State and other similar considerations."
Thus, from the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that while considering the application for grant of bail, the High Court has to consider certain factors including "whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the witnesses or being a threat to the first informant or witnesses and "the antecedents of and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused".
7.1 In the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 28 as under:
Page 24 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER "28. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.
7.2 In the case of Abhishek Anand (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under:
"6. In the facts of the present case, the High Court itself was of the view that the petitioner be released on bail after four months from the date when the order was passed and the charge sheet has already been filed although charges have not yet been framed.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the petitioner be released on bail. The trial Court may while releasing the petitioner on bail may put appropriate conditions for ensuring the presence of the petitioner."
7.3 In the case of Dataram Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Page 25 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER paragraphs 2 and 3 as under:
"xxx Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case."
7.4 This Court cannot dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. However, in the facts of the present case, as observed hereinabove, the prosecution is having reasonable apprehension that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, will influence the first informant as well as witnesses. Further, two other FIRs are also registered against the applicant and therefore the aforesaid decisions would not render any assistance to the applicant in the facts of the present case.
Page 26 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022R/CR.MA/20180/2020 ORDER CONCLUSION : 8. As discussed hereinabove, the prosecution is having reasonable apprehension looking to the conduct of the applicant
immediately after the registration of the FIR of influencing the first informant and witnesses on 24.8.2020 that the applicant will tamper with the witnesses and he will once again try to give threats to the first informant and witnesses. Further, there are two other FIRs registered against the applicant. Hence, in the facts of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. This application is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, liberty is reserved to the applicant to file fresh application before this Court after a period of three months.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) SRILATHA Page 27 of 27 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 13 00:17:51 IST 2022