Gujarat High Court
Ratansing Laxmansinh Vaghela & vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2016
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
R/CR.MA/1602/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDERS) NO.
1602 of 2016
==========================================================
RATANSING LAXMANSINH VAGHELA & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MM SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK JASANI, ADVOATE for respondent No.2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 05/02/2016
ORAL ORDER
Mr.Pratik Jasani, learned advocate is permitted to file his appearance on behalf of original complainant. Affidavit on behalf of complainant filed today is taken on record.
1. By way of the present application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-original accused have prayed to modify and/or delete condition No.9 of the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by 6th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar, District-Bharuch in Criminal Misc. Application No.9 of 2016 while releasing the applicants-accused on regular bail in connection with F.I.R. registered at C.R. No.I-149 of 2015 with Ankleshwar City Police Station, District-Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 408 and Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Feb 06 02:45:08 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/1602/2016 ORDER 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Mr.M.M.Saiyed, learned advocate appearing for the applicants-accused, would submit that the learned Sessions Judge has directed the applicants-accused while releasing the applicants to deposit an amount of Rs.26,81,800/- within a period of five days from the date of their release which is contrary to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He would further submit that the applicants are poor persons and they cannot deposit the said amount as ordered by the Trial Court. He would further submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that only reasonable conditions can be imposed and, therefore, directing the applicants to deposit the amount of Rs.26,81,800/- is contrary to law.
2.1 In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Amarjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in JT 2002 (1) SC 291 and in the case of Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi Rep. By Secretary, Home Deptt., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 66 as well as in the case of Jani Yoginiben Kumarbhai and others v. State of Gujarat vide order dated 12.02.2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.2400 of 2013 and, therefore, condition No.9 imposed by the trial court may be deleted.
3. Mr.Pratik Jasani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2-original complainant has opposed this application and submitted that it is a case of cheating and Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Feb 06 02:45:08 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/1602/2016 ORDER forgery with Angadia Firm wherein the applicant No.1, who was working as Manager of the Branch situated at Ankleshwar and applicant No.2, who is the friend of applicant No.1. He would submit that the amount of Rs.26,81,800/- have been siphoned away by the applicant No.1 on different dates from different branches of the complainant's firm in connivance with applicant No.2 and, therefore, the trial court does not committed any error and, therefore, the prayer made by the learned advocate appearing for the applicants-accused may be rejected.
4. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State would submit that the applicants-accused were subjected to police remand, however, there is no recovery or discovery of any amount from the possession of the applicants-accused as alleged to have been siphoned away by them.
5. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considered the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of Amarjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi reported in JT 2002 (1) SC 291 and in the case of Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi Rep. By Secretary, Home Deptt., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 66 as well as in the case of Jani Yoginiben Kumarbhai and others v. State of Gujarat vide order dated 12.02.2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.2400 of 2013. I am of the opinion that the present application requires consideration and the same is allowed. Condition No.9 imposed by 6th (Ad-hoc) Additional Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Feb 06 02:45:08 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/1602/2016 ORDER Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar, District-Bharuch vide order dated 18.01.2016 in Criminal Misc.Application No.9 of 2016 is hereby deleted. However, the applicant No.1 shall deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) 25,000/- each with local surety as well as applicant No.2 shall deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with local surety within a period of 10 days from today. Rest of the conditions imposed by the Trial Court shall remain as it is. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(A.J.DESAI, J.) Ashish Tripathi Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Feb 06 02:45:08 IST 2016