Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Shaileshbhai Babulal Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 1 July, 2019

Author: Vipul M. Pancholi

Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi

       R/CR.MA/7607/2019                                       ORDER



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO.               7607 of 2019

=======================================================
              SHAILESHBHAI BABULAL BHATT
                         Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR ND NANAVATI, Sr. Adv. with MR RH RUPARELIYA(6212) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MITESH AMIN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent No. 1
=======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

                            Date : 01/07/2019

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant­accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I-3/2018 registered with CID Crime Police Station, Surat for the offenses punishable under Sections 364(A), 365, 384, 387, 343, 323, 504, 506(2), 170, 193, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act.

2. The gist of the FIR is that, The accused named in the FIR have hatched conspiracy and to accomplish it, they have abducted the victims, Piyush Savaliya and Dhaval Page 1 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/7607/2019 ORDER Mavani and illegally detained them for three days and threatened them by identifying themselves as officers of the IT Department and on the point of fire arms, 2256 bit coins worth of Rs.131,07,36,000/­ has been transferred in black chain wallet of Shailesh Bhatt; 11,000 lite coins worth of Rs.9,64,00,000/­ have been transferred in the banance wallet of Kirit Paladiya and obtained cash amount of Rs.14,50,00,000/­ from Angadiya and thereby the accused have committed alleged offences.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Shri N.D. Nanavati assisted by learned advocate, Mr. R.H. Rupareliya for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Mitesh Amin for the respondent - State.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant is falsely implicated in the FIR in question. It is submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed an FIR being C.R. No.I­2/2018 against the Police Officers at the instance of the present applicant and in the said FIR, the Superintendent of Police is also implicated and, therefore with a view to pressurize the applicant, FIR in question is Page 2 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/7607/2019 ORDER filed. He, therefore, urged that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.

5. Learned advocate would thereafter submit that the investigating agency has recorded the statement of one Vinubhai Savaliya i.e. the father of a person (Piyush Vinubhai Savaliya), who was alleged to have been kidnapped. Learned advocate has referred to the said statement, which was recorded on 26.05.2018 and after referring to the same, it is contended that Piyush Vinubhai Savaliya was not kidnapped as alleged in the FIR. At this stage, learned advocate has also referred to the affidavit dated 05.05.2018 signed by said Piyush Vinubhai Savaliya and, thereafter, submitted that the said person was not abducted as alleged.

6. Learned advocate further submits that the inquiry was conducted on the basis of alleged application dated 07.02.2018 given by said Piyush Savaliya, however, the said application is not signed by him and, therefore, the statement of said Piyush Savaliya recorded on 19.05.2018 may not be believed by this Court.

7. Learned advocate at this stage submitted that all other co­accused are released on regular bail Page 3 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/7607/2019 ORDER either by this Court or by the concerned Sessions Court. Learned advocate has referred to said orders, which are produced on record. He, therefore, urged that in the facts of the present case, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and, therefore, this Court may release the applicant on anticipatory bail. He has also contended that warrant under Section 70 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has not been issued against the applicant and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant is an absconder.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Amin has vehemently opposed this application and submitted that FIR in question relates to kidnapping of Piyush Savaliya and Dhaval Mavani and both these persons were kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom in the nature of extorting bit coins and cash from the said victims. It is contended that during the course of investigation, it is revealed that after the victims were kidnapped and illegally detained, 2091 bit coins were forcefully extorted from them, which was subsequently transferred in the account (block chain wallet) of Page 4 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/7607/2019 ORDER the applicant and the said aspect is supported by technical report given by the Technical Adviser CID Crime, Cyber Cell. At this stage, it is submitted that the co­accused, Kirit Paladiya has also received through the applicant during the same period of offence in his binance wallet 11000 lite coins (another virtual currency) and the said lite coins were converted into 166 bit coins by co­accused. It is further submitted that on 02.02.2018, as per the statement of the witness, Anilbhai Dahyabhai Patel, who works in Angadiya firm viz., "P Umesh Angadiya", Mahidharpura, Surat, the applicant has received sum of Rs.14.50 crores in the name of one P.D. Jadeja (fictitious entity) and, thereafter upto 05.02.2018, another sum of approximately Rs.19.00 crores were also received in the same name from the same account and on the instruction of the applicant, an amount of Rs.10.00 crores are paid to the co­accused, Hitesh Jotasana. It is further revealed during the course of investigation that from the same account, on the instruction of the applicant, huge amount is transferred to other branches of same Angadiya firm situated at Jamangar, Rajkot, Page 5 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/7607/2019 ORDER Vadodara and Ahmedabad. Learned Public Prosecutor would thereafter submit that the investigating agency has also collected various receipt/ diary substantiating the aforesaid transactions. It is also the case of the investigating agency that substantial amount credited in the account of the applicant during the period in question is deposited by witness, Suresh Gorasiya, who is a person working for the victim, Dhaval Mavani. Thus there is sufficient material collected during the course of investigation against the applicant. The statement of another witness, Shailesh Patel, who works with the firm viz., "P Vijay Angadiya", Surat is also recorded.

9. Learned Public Prosecution also submitted that it is also revealed during the course of investigation that during the period between 01.02.2018 and 04.02.2018, the applicant transferred in all 260 bit coins in the wallet of the co­accused, Nikunj Bhatt. Similarly, 603 bit coins were transferred in the wallet of co­ accused, Jignesh Mordiya. These co­accused are closely connected to the applicant.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor has thereafter referred Page 6 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/7607/2019 ORDER to the statement of the victim, Piyush Savaliya, which was recorded on 19.05.2018. It is submitted that on 14.03.2018, through co­accused, Jignesh Kheni, the applicant had talk with the victim, Piyush Savaliya, which reveals that the victim was offered Rs.15.00 lakhs to leave India so that the applicant and other co­accused could save themselves from the investigation/ inquiry and the said amount was also paid to victim, Piyush Savaliya. Thereafter, it is also revealed that the victim stayed at his native place i.e. Amreli to keep himself out of reach from Surat and, thereafter, he also went outside India and returned back on 03.05.2018. It is also revealed that the co­accused, Kirit Vala and Jignesh Kheni exerted pressure and coercion on Punit Patoliya (witness), who is near relative of victim, Piyush Savaliya and made the payment of huge amount to them for executing affidavit of victim, Piyush Savaliya, in which, it is stated that the applicant is innocent. Thus, the applicant through other co­accused had engaged himself in tutoring and tampering with the evidence and influencing the important witnesses.

Page 7 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019 

        R/CR.MA/7607/2019                                           ORDER



11.   Learned      Public    Prosecutor,             therefore,      submitted

that the affidavit of Piyush Savaliya upon which reliance is placed by the applicant, is not helpful to the applicant.

12. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that from the statements of Hitesh Kanjibhai, Rasik Kanji and Paresh Vallabhbhai, it is revealed that Mobile No.7874612198 was used by the applicant, which was in the name of one P.D. Jadeja. Thus, the said aspect is also supported by the statement of the persons working with Angadiya, who have clearly stated that the account maintained by them in the name of P.D. Jadeja was as such operated by the applicant by using the aforesaid mobile.

13. Learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the panchnama drawn at the time of conducting Test Identification Parade by the investigating agency, wherein the victim, Piyush Savaliya has identified certain accused as the person either involved in an act of his kidnapping and abduction and/or as a person involved in illegally detaining him and the accused are, Jignesh Moradiya, Kirit Vala, Jagdish Kanabhai Rathod, Jignesh Kheni, Manoj Kyada, Umesh Goswami and Hitesh Jotasana. At this stage, it is Page 8 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/7607/2019 ORDER submitted that during the course of investigation, it is also revealed that the applicant was in constant touch with the aforesaid accused during the period of offence as well as the period prior and subsequent to the offence. The call detail records are available in the investigation papers. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to necessary CDR details and tower location of the applicant as well as the victim, Dhaval Mavani and other co­ accused persons.

14. At this stage, it is also submitted that 169 bit coins are recovered from the accused, Nikunj Bhatt, Dilip Kanani and Manoj Kyada. Further, more than Rs.26.00 crores is also recovered from other 7 co­accused. It is also stated that the recovery of around 8 Kg. gold is made from the co­accused, Jignesh Moradiya.

15. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the statements of the co­accused are also recorded by the investigating agency after their arrest, which also involve the present applicant with the alleged offence. It is submitted that as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Muraleedharan Vs. State of Kerala, Page 9 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/7607/2019 ORDER reported in (2001) 4 SCC 638, the statements of the co­accused can be considered at the stage of anticipatory bail and it also suggest about permitting custodial interrogation for qualitative investigation. He, therefore, urged that looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.

16. At this stage, it is also contended that looking to the conduct of the applicant that he is not available for the purpose of investigation since registration of the FIR and when the warrant is issued under Section 70 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as well as the proceedings under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. It is, therefore, urged that this application be dismissed.

17. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record as well as the investigation papers, it is revealed that FIR in question is filed against the applicant and other co­accused for the alleged offences under Sections 364(A), 365, 384, 387, Page 10 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/7607/2019 ORDER 343, 323, 504, 506(2), 170, 193, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act. In the said incident, two persons viz., Piyush Savaliya and Dhaval Mavani were kidnapped and they were illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom in the nature of extorting bit coins and cash from them. Learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the statement of the victim, Piyush Savaliya as well as the statements of other witnesses including the statement of one Anil Dahyabhai Patel, who is working in "P Umesh Angadiya", Mahidharpura, Surat. From the material available in the investigation papers in the form of CDR as well as recovery of bit coins and huge amount from the co­ accused and recovery of 8 Kgs. gold from the co­ accused, it is revealed that the present applicant is involved in the alleged offences and the applicant is the main accused and master mind behind the entire episode. The applicant was in constant touch with other co­accused during the period of offence as well as period prior to and subsequent to the incident in question. It is also revealed that the victim, Piyush Savaliya has Page 11 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/7607/2019 ORDER identified certain persons as co­accused during the course of test identification parade as the persons either involved in an act of his kidnapping and abduction and/or as a persons involved in illegally detaining him.

18. It is also revealed from the material that during the period in which both the victims were kidnapped and illegally detained, 2091 bit coins were forcefully extorted from the victims, which was deposited/ credited/ transferred in the account viz., black chain wallet of the applicant. The said aspect is supported by the technical report given by the concerned Technical Adviser CID Crime, Cyber Cell. The co­accused, Kirit has also received through the applicant during the same period of offence in his binance wallet, 11000 lite coins, which was converted by the co­ accused into 166 lite coins.

19. It is also reflected from the material collected during course of investigation that on 14.03.2018, the applicant had talk with the victim, Piyush through the co­accused, Jignesh Kheni, the victim was offered Rs.15.00 lakhs to leave India so that the applicant and other co­accused could save Page 12 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/7607/2019 ORDER themselves from the investigation. The said amount was paid to the victim, Piyush Savaliya and, therefore, he stayed at his native at Amreli to keep himself out of reach from Surat and, thereafter, he went to outside India and, thereafter, returned back on 03.05.2018. Thus, the reliance placed by learned advocate for the applicant on the affidavit dated 05.05.2018 of the victim, Piyush Salaviya, is misconceived. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order dated 20.08.2018 in Criminal Misc. Application No.14587/2018 and allied matters filed by the co­ accused, in which, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has also perused the statements of the abducted victim and after considering those documents, the observations have been made in Para No.8.5, which reads as under, "8.5 The Court has perused statement of abducted victim. In his statement, categoric role is attributed to accused persons. This includes role of the applicants in forcing him to prepare an affidavit in anticipation of any criminal action against the applicants and also influencing the victim and his relative by Page 13 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/7607/2019 ORDER paying huge amount so that the victim does not go to police to complaint about the offence."

20. From the aforesaid discussion, it is revealed that there is a prima facie case against the applicant and looking to the complexity of the matter as discussed hereinabove, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Thus it is not correct on the part of the learned advocate for the applicant to contend that FIR is filed against the concerned Police officer at the instance of the present applicant and, hence, he has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. Thus, the said contention is not accepted.

21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Gautam Page 14 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 09 23:48:46 IST 2019