Gujarat High Court
Jigarbhai Amrutlal Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat & on 12 September, 2014
Author: Anant S.Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
R/CR.MA/13961/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 13961
of 2014
==========================================
=
JIGARBHAI AMRUTLAL THAKKAR....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
=============================================
==
Appearance:
M/S THAKKAR ASSOC., ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YN RAVANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MOXA THAKKAR ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
==
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date : 12/09/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. This is the 2nd successive application filed by the applicant for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with C.R. No. R.C. No. 1 (E)/2011/CBI/BS&FC/Mumbai registered with CBI/BS&FC/Mumbai Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Initially, the applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 14120 of 2012 which came to be withdrawn vide order dated 21.12.2012, which read as under:
"Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicant, seeks permission to withdraw this application at this stage.
Permission, as prayed for, is granted. The instant
applicant stands disposed of, as withdrawn. Rule is
Page 1 of 8
R/CR.MA/13961/2014 ORDER
discharged."
3. Thereafter, the applicant filed Criminal Misc. Application NO.9817 of 2013 which came to be rejected vide order dated 08.08.2013, which read as under:
"1 The applicant has filed this successive bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with First Information Report registered as RC No.1[E]/2011/CBI/BS &FC/Mumbai registered with CBI, BS & FC, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC as also under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2 Earlier, the applicant has filed Criminal Misc. Application No.14120 of 2012 and sought permission to withdraw the applications. Accordingly, this Court granted permission to withdraw the application vide orders dated 21.122012.
3 Learned counsel for the applicant, submits that charge sheet is filed and the applicant is in jail from 26.07.2012. It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution is exclusively triable by court of Magistrate and till date the charge is not framed. It is further submitted that looking to the role of the applicant the applicant could be the witness in the present case instead of an accused. It is further submitted that the main allegations are against the Page 2 of 8 R/CR.MA/13961/2014 ORDER Managing Director, Director and other executives of the company, who are incharge of the affairs of the company and the petitioner is made the scapegoat. It is further submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and falsely implicated in the alleged offence merely because a small part of amount appears to have been routed in the bank where the present application was a director in Siddhi Cooperative and Vinayak Cooperative Bank. It is submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are of introducing customers for opening bank accounts, which are found to be fictitious. It is further submitted that all other accused including the top functionaries of the company are enlarged on bail by this court, the Apex Court and some of the accused are on default bail granted by the competent court. It is further submitted that the applicant is having roots in the society and is permanent resident and now charge sheet is filed and, therefore, tampering with any evidence or influencing the witnesses is ruled out. Learned advocate for the applicant has relied on the following decisions :
[i] Kanimozhi Karunanithi v. CBI [Bail Application No.1567 of 2011 decided by the Apex Court on 28.11.2011].
[ii] Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012)1 SCC 40].
Heard learned APP for the respondent - State of Gujarat.
4 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Page 3 of 8 R/CR.MA/13961/2014 ORDER APP for the respondent - State of Gujarat.
5 It is pertinent to refer the observations made in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the order dated 15.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge & Sp. Judge, CBI Court No.3, at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in CBI Criminal Misc. Application No.64 of 2013 filed by the present applicant. The reasons weighted with the learned Judge while rejecting the bail application of the applicant, are reproduced hereunder: "7. The application in detail and contents there of are not reproduced hereunder as the same are self explanatory. On giving a thoughtful consideration to the material available on record, it clearly transpires that the present applicant played a major role in opening the accounts of nonexisting farmers. The fact is also not in dispute that not a single farmer happens to be genuine recipient of the facilities of Bank of Maharashtra and further that all the documents pertaining to all the farmers are forged. The funds were also rotated through various accounts controlled by the applicant accused before being withdrawn in cash or through DD in the name of M/s. BIL. Thus, the applicant has played a very vital role in cheating Bank of Maharashtra and he is charged with the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and using forged documents as genuine. Thus, when the applicant has very actively participated in the commission of crime and he being an influential person, there is every likelihood of the influencing the witnesses to prejudice the case of prosecution and Page 4 of 8 R/CR.MA/13961/2014 ORDER also not being available to face the trial. The fact is also not in dispute that the accused are involved in defrauding several other banks to the tune of Rs.1100 crores and if the accused is released, he may try to scuttle the investigation. The fact should also not be sight of that the amount of defrauded money is so huge and the nature of crime is so grave that on this count the balance tilts in favour of the society at large as against the personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
8 I have gone through the case Sanjay Chandra V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2012(1) G.L.H. 93 and the case of Jehangir Margban Patel V/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2003(2) GLR 1835. However, as the present applicant is directly involved in the offence of siphoning of huge amount of public money as it culls out on cursorily going through the chargesheet which is filed in the Court on completion of investigation. Thus, looking to the huge amount of public money which is involved and when there is a large scale conspiracy which has been unearthed and keeping in mind the gravity of offence and its impact on the society, even at this prima facie stage the applicant appears to be involved in the present offence.
9 Thus, in nutshell it can be said that no new ground or change in circumstances has been brought on record by the Ld. Advocate Mr. Ahuja appearing for the applicant and therefore the present bail Page 5 of 8 R/CR.MA/13961/2014 ORDER application is required to be rejected. At the cost of reiteration it needs to be mentioned that, on perusal of the reply filed by the BI vide Exh.7, it reveals that the applicant is a habitual offender and has defrauded several banks viz. Bank of Maharashtra, Corporation Bank and Oriental Bank of Commerce and is also involved in defrauding several other banks to the tune of Rs.1100 crores and the accused may scuttle the investigation, if released on bail and looking to the magnitude of the amount of fraud and the gravity of crime, the present bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be rejected outrightly. Hence, the following operative order".
6 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned Judge while rejecting the bail. In such a huge systematic fraud and misappropriation of public funds ranging from Rs.1100 crores onwards and the punishment prescribed is life imprisonment and apprehension of influencing the witnesses and tampering with the record is not ruled out even by imposing conditions since the applicant and other coaccused in the crime are highly influential persons.
7 I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra [supra] and Kanimozhi Karunanithi [supra]. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the above cases relied by learned advocate Page 6 of 8 R/CR.MA/13961/2014 ORDER for the applicant have no application. This Court does not find any merit in the submissions of learned advocate for the applicant and not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code in favour of the applicant in absence of change of fact or law. Accordingly, this application is rejected."
4. Thereafter the applicant approached the Apex Court and vide oder dated 29.11.2013 in SLP (Cri) No. 8143 of 2013 following order is passed:
" Heard both sides.
Taking note of all the materials placed, particularly the role alleged as projected in the materials placed by the CBI., we are not inclined to consider the application for bail made on behalf of the petitioner at this juncture. However, we direct the trial Judge to take all endeavour for early completion of the trial, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
With the above observation, the special leave petition is dismissed."
5. Now, the applicant had filed this 2nd successive bail application. There is no change in facts and law and even the Apex Court has not interfered with the reasoned order passed by this Court while rejecting the earlier application of the petitioner. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, role attributed to the applicants in the crime under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Page 7 of 8 R/CR.MA/13961/2014 ORDER Penal Code, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6. Accordingly, this application fails and is hereby rejected.
(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) SMITA Page 8 of 8