Gujarat High Court
Aiyub Ibrahim Bhol vs State Of Gujarat on 21 June, 2021
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
R/CR.MA/9341/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9341 of 2021
=============================================
AIYUB IBRAHIM BHOL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MOHDDANISH M BAREJIA(10612) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. MOXA THAKKER, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 21/06/2021
ORAL ORDER
[1] Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties by video conferencing.
[2] By way of the present application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), the applicant- accused has prayed for bail in connection with the F.I.R. being C.R. No.11199003200334 of 2020 registered with Aamod Police Station, District Bharuch for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 471, 406, 198 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
[3] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not made any false or forged documents. He has further submitted that the applicant has suppressed the fact that civil dispute is already pending before Taluka Court, Aamod being Civil Suit No.18 of 2018. It is submitted that the first informant has filed a false FIR just to put pressure on the applicant as the civil litigation is also pending. It is further submitted that the civil dispute is converted into a criminal offence. It is further submitted that there is a delay of around 23 years and there is no proper explanation about it in the said FIR. Learned advocate for the applicant has further submitted that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary. He Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 24 21:09:23 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/9341/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021 further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, as well as in the trial also and will not flee from justice. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a businessman and he is visiting England for his business purpose, and hence, a suitable date may be given to him for remaining present before the concerned Investigating Officer.
[3.1] Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, states 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 submits that upon filing of such application by the investigating agency, the right of the applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
[4] Learned APP Ms.Moxa Thakker has submitted that the owner is staying in England. She has submitted that in fact, the FIR has been registered, pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 23.07.2020 in Special Criminal Application No.3015 of 2020. She has further submitted that several representations/applications were made by the complainant on 09.06.2017, 22.08.2017, 08.02.2018, 09.04.2018, 25.05.2018 and 22.10.2018, pursuant to that, a SIT was constituted on 08.01.2020, headed by the Collector. It is submitted that the concerned Investigating Officer, on 17.01.2020, sought further opinion of the law officer for implementing the order, on 01.02.2020, it was opined by the officer attached with the office of the respondent No.2 that on account of bar under Section 195 of the Code, though cognizable offence was disclosed, the FIR cannot be registered, without the order of the Court. In these circumstances, Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 24 21:09:23 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/9341/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021 the Coordinate Bench by the aforesaid dated 23.07.2020 had directed the respondent No.2 to take action on the complaint filed by the applicant of Special Criminal Application No.3015 of 2020 and accordingly the present FIR has been registered. In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent- State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
[5] 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 anticipatory bail to the applicant.
[5.1] A perusal of the aforesaid facts would reveal that the complainant has alleged that the power of attorney is forged in the year 1998 and thereafter, he came to know about the said forgery in the year 2017 and, therefore, he made various complaints to the concerned authorities. It appears that the present FIR has been registered pursuant to the directions issued by this Court to the concerned authorities to take action on the complaints filed by the applicant of 2017.
[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 anticipatory bail to the applicant.
[7] This Court has considered following aspects;
Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 24 21:09:23 IST 2021R/CR.MA/9341/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021 (a) There is a delay in registering the FIR, and there is no proper explanation for the same in the said FIR; (b) Looking to the role attributed to the present applicant; (c) That the nature of allegations are such for which custodial
interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary.
[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 the F.I.R. being C.R. No.11199003200334 of 2020 registered with Aamod 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 :
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on any day between 12.07.2021 and 22.07.2021 between 11.00 a.m. and 05.00 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;
Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 24 21:09:23 IST 2021R/CR.MA/9341/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021
(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 Magistrate would decide it 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 anticipatory 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.
Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 24 21:09:23 IST 2021R/CR.MA/9341/2021 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021 [12] The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
[13] Registry is directed to intimate the concerned authority/Court about the present order by sending a copy of this order through Fax message, email and/or any other suitable electronic mode.
[14] 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.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) VISHAL MISHRA Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 24 21:09:23 IST 2021