Bipinbhai Chandulal Ranpariya vs State Of Gujarat on 11 April, 2018

[Cites 6, Cited by 21]

Gujarat High Court

Bipinbhai Chandulal Ranpariya vs State Of Gujarat on 11 April, 2018

Bench: S.H.Vora

       R/CR.MA/6033/2018                            ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6033 of 2018
==========================================================
               BIPINBHAI CHANDULAL RANPARIYA
                            Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YS LAKHANI with MR. JAY M THAKKAR(6677) for the PETITIONERS
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Orig. Complainant
MR MITESH AMIN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the RESPONDENT No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA

                           Date : 11/04/2018

                            ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. YS Lakhani, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Jay Thakkar, learned advocate for the applicant, ld. Advocate Mr. Raval for the complainant and learned PP, for the respondent-State.

2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. registered at C.R. No. I - 44/2018 with 'A' Division Police Station, Rajkot City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) of the IPC.

2.1 The gist of the case is that the applicants are Directors of M/s Bhalara Cotton Private Ltd., who availed loan of Rs.15 crore from the bank for business purpose by mortgaging properties of the applicant No.1 with the bank. It is alleged that under the shelter of the company having under loss of Rs.8 crore and 10 lakh, the applicants entered into conspiracy with an intention to siphon away money of the bank and thereby, committed breach of trust. Hence, present FIR.

Page 1 of 3

R/CR.MA/6033/2018 ORDER

3. Considering the police papers supplied by learned PP during the course of hearing, it appears that (i) substantial investigation is over, (ii) the complainant bank has initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, (iii) notice dated 28.4.2017 does not reflect any factual allegation as alleged in the complaint,

(iv) out of list of 46 debtors, it appears that 41 have not disputed the outstanding amount payable by the applicants,

(v) three different complaints are filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicants, (vi) the offences alleged against the applicant are triable by Magisterial Court and considering the pendency before the concerned Magisterial Court, there is no likelihood of commencement and conclusion of trial within near future and therefore, refusal of bail will amount to pre-trial conviction, which is prohibited by law. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the applicants may be put to certain terms, so that amount outstanding can be secured or recovered. In Court's considered opinion, present proceedings are not of a nature of recovery proceedings of money and therefore, said contention cannot be considered in view of peculiar facts of the present case. Therefore, present Criminal Misc. Application deserves consideration.

4. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicants are ordered to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. I - 44/2018 with 'A' Division Police Station, Rajkot City on executing a bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions Page 2 of 3 R/CR.MA/6033/2018 ORDER that they 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] not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

[d] appear before the Investigation Officer concerned, as and when required for investigation purpose and attend the Court concerned regularly.

[e] furnish the present address of residence along with the proof to the I.O. concerned and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of Sessions Court concerned;

5. The competent authority will release the applicants only if they are 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 take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. 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.

6. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(S.H.VORA, J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court