Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Jayantibhai Girdharbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 3 April, 2014

Author: Anant S. Dave

Bench: Anant S. Dave

          R/CR.MA/4194/2014                                         ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL ) NO. 
                                 4194 of 2014

==============================================================
            JAYANTIBHAI GIRDHARBHAI PATEL....Applicant(s)
                             Versus
                 STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR PM THAKKAR Ld. Sr. Counsel with MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY, 
ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==============================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE


           Date : 03/04/2014
 
ORAL ORDER

1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the  Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with first information report  registered  at  C.R.  No.  I­18    of  2014  with  Mehsana City  "B"  Division  Police   Station,   District:   Mehsana,   for   the   offences   punishable   under  Sections 406420465468471120B and 114 of the Indian Penal  Code.

2. At the outset,   it is not in dispute that co­accused of the same  FIR came to be considered by this Court when they have filed regular  bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  in which this Court  had considered all relevant  police papers in the  Page 1 of 8 R/CR.MA/4194/2014 ORDER presence   of   the   Investigating   Officer   and   the   case   of   the   applicant  herein, is also arising out of the same FIR and the police papers. 2.1.   The fact  of  the case  in brief  is  that  the  applicant  is  a highly  reputed person in the public life and the Director of Mehsana District  Co­operative Milk Producers' Union Limited.   The applicant was also  holing   other   posts   in   public   life   in   the   past.   In   the   backdrop   of  allegations, learned senior counsel for the applicant would submit that  last year, there was a situation of drought in the State of Maharashtra  and therefore, the Maharashtra State Cooperative Milk Federation had  made a request to the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation  Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'Gujarat Federation') to aid and assist to  meet with the drought and famine situation and to provide the cattle  feeds at  a  subsidized rate or  by way of  donation.  As  it appears,  the  GCMMF   (Gujarat   Federation)   initially   on   principle   had   agreed   for  providing cattle feed to the said Federation of Maharashtra and other  drought and famine affected milk producers union members of the said  Federation, especially seven Districts of State of Maharashtra pursuant  to meeting held under Chairmanship of Union Minister for Agriculture.

3. The   submissions   canvassed   by   the   learned   advocate   for   the  applicant   in   the   cases   of   co­accused   and   submissions   made   by   the  learned senior counsel herein, are similar and detailed submissions are  not recorded, but basic contentions are as under :­ 3.1. Learned senior  counsel  for  the  applicant  would further submit  that the Mehsana District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Limited  has established the manufacturing plants of cattle feed and that the  Page 2 of 8 R/CR.MA/4194/2014 ORDER Mehsana Dairy is providing cattle feed to its member affiliated societies  and   other   District   level   Unions   on   'no   profit   no   loss   basis'.   In   this  situation, when the Maharashtra State Milk Federation made a request  on 24.01.2013 for supply of 22,500 MT cattle feeds for a social cause  and   accordingly,   the   Mehsana   District   Milk   Producers   Cooperative  Union Limited (hereinafter referred as, 'the Mehsana Dudhsagar Dairy')  from 27.04.2013 had supplied the cattle feeds and out of said demand,  13731.5 MT having a value of Rs.18,64,05,903/­was supplied and for  the said supply a transportation expenditure of Rs.3,86,20,725/­ was  incurred.  The said amount of transportation was paid to the respective  transporters by the Mehsana Dudhsagar Dairy through cheques, and  requisite   resolution   was   passed   by   the   Board   of   Directors   of   the  Mehsana Dudhsagar Dairy on 29.04.2013 and thus the Debit Note of  Rs.22,50,26,628/­ was sent to the Federation on 12.08.2013. However,  a   motion   of   no   confidence   was   moved   and   accordingly,   Managing  Director   of   the   GCMMF   (Gujarat   Federation)   had   summoned   the  meeting under Agenda notice dated 23.10.2013 and the meeting was to  be   held   on   26.10.2013,   but,   before   this   Court   on   25.10.2013,   after  bipartite   hearing,   the   meeting   dated   26.10.2013   was   stayed   and  ultimately a meeting to transact the business of approving a motion of  no  confidence  against   the  Chairman  of   Mehsana  Dairy   could   not   be  convened and finally, litigation is now pending in the Apex Court.  3.2. Learned senior  counsel  for  the  applicant  would further submit  that   the   Managing   Director   of   the   Gujarat   State   Cooperative   Milk  Marketing   Federation   the   Federation   had   written   the   Debit   Note   of  Rs.22,50,26,281/­ and on 12.08.2013 the Mehsana Dudhsagar Dairy  had   forwarded   the   said   Debit   Note   of   the   said   amount   to   the  Page 3 of 8 R/CR.MA/4194/2014 ORDER Maharashtra   State   Cooperative   Milk   Federation"   Mahananda   Dairy",  which was returned on 30.10.2013. Now, these facts and the chain of  events have been considered to be an offence under Sections 406420465468471120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The Cooperative  Commissioner   and   Registrar,   Cooperative   Societies,   Gujarat   State,  Gandhinagar, straight way passed an order dated 23.01.2014 directing  the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patan, Shri Shaileshkumar  Narmadashanker Joshi to file a complaint as criminal breach of trust  and   financial   offence   punishable   under   the   Indian   Penal   Code   and  accordingly, the District Registrar, Cooperative Society, on 24.01.2014,  forwarded written complaint to Mehsana City 'B' Division Police Station  on his own incorporating offences punishable under Sections 406420465468471120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and registered  the same as C.R. No. I­18 of 2014.

3.3.  Learned senior counsel for the applicant would also submit that  the   applicant   along   with   other   officers   have   filed   Special   Criminal  Application No.361 of 2014 for quashing of the proceedings. However,  the said Special Criminal Application along with other Special Criminal  Application filed by members of Board of Directors have been admitted  by this Court, but the investigation has not been stayed and certain  directions have been issued to the investigating agency to collect and  examine the material and documents.

3.4. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant further submitted that  the applicant is falsely implicated with oblique motive to humiliate the  applicant and drag him in the criminal litigation. The applicant has no  criminal antecedents and he will not flee from Court of justice. Page 4 of 8

R/CR.MA/4194/2014 ORDER

4.  Heard learned APP for the respondent State, who opposed grant  of bail looking to the nature and gravity of offence, and submitted that  dispatch of cattle feeds and transportation, for which, no sanction of  the   competent   authority   was   obtained   and   payment   was   made   and  without recovery of payment for the goods dispatched for further cattle  feeds supplied, loss is caused to the Mehsana District Cooperative Milk  Producers   Union   Limited.   It   is   also   submitted   that   even   some  resolutions and agenda meetings are also in realm of the investigation.  The     learned   APP   therefore   submitted   that   considering   the   above  aspects, this application deserves to be rejected.

5.   Having heard the learned senior counsel for the applicant and  learned APP for the respondent­State and considering the overall facts  and   circumstances   of   the   case   and   perusal   of   investigation   papers,  including   letter   dated   23.04.2013   addressed   by   the   Chairman   of  Maharashtra   Rajya   Sahakari   Dudh   Mahasangh,   Mumbai,   State   of  Maharashtra  to  the   Chairman  of   GCMMF   (Gujarat   Federation)   along  with   Resolution   No.5(B)   of   GCMMF   referring   to   the   above   letter,  dispatch of 13731.5 MTs of cattle feeds without verification of drought  affected areas of the State of Maharashtra, delivery of cattle feeds, for  which,   delivery   challans   and   payment   made   to   the   transporters    by  cheques appear on record and the above facts are not denied by the  Investigating Officer, other aspects about resolutions and agenda items  of the Federation, for which, records are available with the Investigating  Officer and that, in absence of any criminal antecedents against  the  applicant, availability of the applicant during trial could be secured by  imposing suitable conditions. Apart from that, the fact  that the delivery  Page 5 of 8 R/CR.MA/4194/2014 ORDER of cattle feeds to respective gram panchayats at various districts of the  State   of   Maharashtra   remains   undisputed   as   on   date.     Further   the  Certificate of Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh Mahasang Maryadit,  Mumbai issued by the  Chief Co­ordinator and General Manager (Mktg.)  dated   10.10.2013   was   received   via   e­mail   dated   15.10.2013   by   the  concerned Officer, Mehsana District Co­operative Milk Producers' Union  Limited, Mehsana. In the said certificate, it is stated that implementing  agencies   of   various   districts   under   Maharashtra   Drought   Relief   Aid  Scheme have received 13731.5 MT of cattle feed in good condition at  Taluka/District level godowns during the period from 1st May, 2013 to  31st  July, 2013. Along with the said certificate, about 22 pages with  regard  to  camps   showing   various  details   of   receipt   of   cattle   feeds  at  District and Taluka level, were annexed. Considering the above aspects,  I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.  This Court has  also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in  the   case   of  Siddharam   Satlingappa   Mhetre   v.   State   of   Maharashtra   &   Ors.  Reported   in   [2011]1   SCC   694,  wherein  the  Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in  the   case   of  Shri   Gurubaksh   Singh   Sibbia   &   Ors.   Reported   in   [1980]2 SCC 565.

6. Learned counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned  order.

7. In the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the  event of the applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being C.R.  No.   I­18     of   2014   with   Mehsana   City   "B"   Division   Police   Station,  Page 6 of 8 R/CR.MA/4194/2014 ORDER District: Mehsana, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing  a bond of Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with one surety of  like amount on following conditions :­ [a] shall cooperate with the investigation and make  himself   available for interrogation whenever required. 

[b] shall   remain   present   at   concerned   Police   Station   on   11.04.2014 between 11:00 am to 2:00 pm:

[c] shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall   directly   or   indirectly   make   any   inducement,   threat   or   promise   to   any   witness   so   as   to   dissuade   them   from   disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;
[d] shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address   to   the   Investigating   Officer   and   the   Court   concerned   and   shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the   case or till further orders;
[e]  will   not   leave   India   without   the   permission   of   the   Court   and,   if   is   holding   a   Passport,   shall   surrender   the   same   before the trial Court immediately [f] It   would   be   open   to   the   Investigating   Officer   to   file   an   application  for remand,  if he considers  it just  and  proper   and the concerned Magistrate would decide it on merits.
[g] despite   this   order,   it   would  be   open  for  the  Investigating   Agency   to   apply   to   the   competent   Magistrate,   for   police   remand   of   the   applicant.   The   applicant   shall   remain   present  before  the learned  Magistrate  on the first  date  of   hearing   of   such   application   and   on   all   subsequent   occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate.   This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial   custody  for the  purpose  of  entertaining  application  of  the   prosecution   for   police   remand.   This   is,   however,   without   Page 7 of 8 R/CR.MA/4194/2014 ORDER prejudice  to the right of the accused to seek stay against   an order of remand, if ultimately granted, and the power of   the   learned   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.
8. For modification and/or deletion of any of the conditions herein  above,   the   applicant/s   will   be   at   liberty   to   approach   the   concerned  Court   and   such   Court   shall   decide   the   application   for   modification  and/or deletion of any of the conditions of this order in accordance with  law.
9. 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 applicant on bail.
10. Rule made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
11. Direct service is permitted.

(ANANT S.DAVE, J.)  /phalguni/ Page 8 of 8