Gujarat High Court
Uday Navinchandra Sanghani vs State Of Gujarat on 17 October, 2014
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO. 15037 of 2014
================================================================
UDAY NAVINCHANDRA SANGHANI....Applicant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YS LAKHANI, LD.SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR CB GUPTA,
LD.ADVOCATE for the Applicant.
MR PK JANI, LD.ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR RC KODEKAR,
LD.ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent.
============================================================
====
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 17/10/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section- 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with the FIR registered at CR No. I-37 of 2013 before DCB Police Station, Surat on 13/12/2013, for the offenses punishable under Sections 213, 214, 217, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7, 8, 9, 12 & 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
2. Brief facts of the present case, are as under :
2.1 That one Mr.J.K.Zala, Assistant Commissioner of Page 1 of 16 R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER Police, "B" Division Police Station, Surat, had lodged an FIR on 13.12.2013, before DCB Police Station, Surat, against different accused persons including the present applicant, alleging inter alia that one of the accused, namely, Narayan Sai, who is facing serious charges for an offence registered at CR No. I-31of 2013 with Jehangirpura Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 354, 357, 342, 346, 143, 147, 148, 149, 506(2), 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, came to be arrested and the said Narayan Sai was under police remand at DCB Police Station, Surat. A team of several police officers, was appointed to interrogate the accused person and to keep vigil on Narayan Sai and his close ones since he is very influential person and having lacs of devotees as he is known as "Bhagwan" being a religious leader along with his father namely Asharam. Those persons, who were close to these two accused persons namely Narayan Sai and Asharam, were under surveillance by the Investigating Officer of that offence.
2.2 That one Mr.Jabba, Police Sub-Inspector, who was one of the member of the investigating team and who was also interrogating the said Narayan Sai on 9.12.2013. During the interrogation of the said Narayan Sai on that when Narayan Sai was under police remand, he informed the said Mr.Jabba Page 2 of 16 R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER that one Police Sub-Inspector in DCB Crime Branch namely Chandubhai Mohanbhai Kumbhani, who was also part of investigating team, came into the lock up of DCB Police Station at Surat on 9.12.2013 at about 5:30 in the morning along with the present applicant namely Uday Sanghani, who is disciple of the said Narayan Sai. Narayan Sai further informed Mr.Jabba that the case of rape, which has been registered against him can be weakened if money is distributed to the Higher Police Officer of Surat and other different places including in judiciary and, therefore, an amount of Rs.5 Crores is required to be arranged. Mr.Jabba informed that the complainant about the information received from Narayan Sai and, therefore, an FIR was recorded by him and a trap was also arranged but failed. It was also agreed that the important documents discovered and recovered from Asharam's Ashram in another offence, kept in 42 bundles are also to be exchanged with the help of Mr.Kumbhani. 2.3 That the complainant thereafter informed the Higher Officers and kept a watch on Mr.Kumbhani, PSI; the applicant and other persons, who were in contact with Narayan Sai. With the consent of Higher Officers, complainant arranged a reverse trap for the seizer of amount, Page 3 of 16 R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER which was collected by joint efforts of different accused person, towards bribe which was to be accepted by Mr.Kumbhani. Mr.Jabba along with the complainant reached at the place, where Mr.Kumbhani was standing near a car. An amount of Rs.1 crore was found from the said car, in which, the present applicant was sitting. It is further alleged in the FIR that one Naresh @ Rupabhai Bhoglamal Mankani, who was the Administrator of an Ashram run by the original accused - Narayan Sai, has arranged the said amount.
Subsequent to the said trap, further amount of Rs.5 Crores were seized from other accused in further investigation on the same day.
2.4 That the present applicant along with other accused persons came to be arrested by the Investigating Agency and after completion of the investigation, a charge- sheet was filed before the competent court for the offenses stated hereinabove. After completion of investigation and submission of charge-sheet, the applicant approached the trial court for releasing him on bail, which was turned down by learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the present application.
Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, one Page 4 of 16 R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER Jayantilal Ambalal Patel, serving as ACP, `D'-Division Police Station, Surat, who was investigating the present FIR, has filed his Affidavit-in-reply and opposed this application.
3. Mr.Yogesh Lakhani, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.C.B.Gupta, learned Advocate, appearing for the applicant PSI, has vehemently submitted that the entire FIR is lodged only on the basis of the statement made by one of the accused namely Narayan Sai during that too some information stated by him during his police custody stating that the present applicant along with other co-accused had arranged an amount of Rs.5 crores to distribute the same amongst the higher officers of Surat Police, so that the case lodged against Narayan Sai under Sections 376, 377 etc. can be weakened and important documents can be exchanged. The said statement which was made by accused to Police Inspector Mr. Jabba and relying upon the said statement, the allegations have been made against the present applicant that he has participated in the present case.
3.1 Mr.Yogesh Lakhani, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the applicant was subjected to police custody and there is no further recovery of any amount from him. He would submit that the offences punishable under Section 213, Page 5 of 16 R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER 214 and 217 of the IPC are bailable offences. He would further submit that the applicant is not a public servant and, therefor, the offences, which are charged against him u/s.7, 11 & 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not be applicable and the maximum punishment for the offences u/s.8, 9 read with 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is upto five years. He would further submit that the complainant, who is Assistant Commissioner of Police and Mr.Jabba, who is also working as PSI, were aware that in the present crime, senior police officer is involved and the amount of Rs.5 Crores were arranged for payment of bribe, as alleged, however, none of them have undertaken any steps to inform the Officers appointed under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and did not approach the authority established under the said Act by registering the FIR. He would further submit that the applicant is behind the bar since December,2013 and charge-sheet has been filed and no further investigation is required in the matter. He would submit that most of the witnesses are from police department and, therefore, there is no question of tampering with the evidence. He would further submit that the applicant is resident of Ahmedabad and the offence is registered at Surat and, therefore, he can be released on bail by imposing Page 6 of 16 R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER appropriate condition. He would further submit that all other accused persons including PSI Mr.Kumbhani has been enlarged on bail after completion of investigation way back on 4th August,2014 and, therefore, the case of the petitioner can be treated at par with all those accused and, therefore, he is entitled for bail. In support of his above submissions, Mr.Y.S.Lakhani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has relied upon the judgement delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012)1 SCC 40 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with a crime with regard to huge scam has reiterated the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the application for bail and submitted that in the present case when the investigation is over, the applicant can be released on bail by imposing suitable conditions.
4. On the other hand, Mr.P.K.Jani, learned Additional Advocate General appearing with Mr.R.C.Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed this application and submitted that the applicant is the key person in the entire crime, in which, it was decided to bribe the police officers, Doctor as well as judiciary. He would further Page 7 of 16 R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER submit that punishment of the crime may not be at higher side but intention of the accused person and conduct of the accused may be considered. The intention of the accused being the key person and close disciple of Narayan Sai, to bribe the government officers would disturb the social structure of the society, which would hamper the administration of justice in system of delivering the justice. The conduct of the applicant is detrimental to the society and such person cannot be released on bail.
4.1 Apart from the above submission, by taking me through the statements of several witnesses namely Reader Police Inspector Mr.Jabba; police personal Mr.Bharatsinh Jorubhai; Limjibhai Gamit and transcript between the present applicant and Mr.Kumbhani and submit that there is a prima facie case against the present applicant and, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
4.2 He would further submit that the applicant was in constant touch with Mr.Narayan Sai as well as PSI Mr.Kumbhani and by using influence, he was able to enter into the police lock up with police inspector and was able to meet Mr.Narayan Sai, who is facing serious charges Page 8 of 16 R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER punishable u/s.376, etc. of the Indian Penal Code. He would further submit that though the applicant is permanent resident of Ahmedabad the applicant immediately reached at Surat when he came to know that Mr.Narayan Sai has been admitted in the Surat Offence and has been kept in DCB Police Station, Surat and met several persons and arranged a plan to get back those 42 bundles of documents, which were collected from the Ashram of Ahmedabad, which prima facie involved serious crime against the Narayan Sai and his father Asharam as well as to weaken the case. He would further submit that he was handling the affairs of Ashram at Ahmedabad and is very close to both of them and if he is released then there are all possibilities that he may influence the witnesses. He would further submit that the applicant before the amount was arranged, he did travel with Mr.Kumbhani, PSI in the police vehicle. He was found with an amount of Rs.1 Crore when the raid was carried out by the complainant. It was further argued that subsequent to seizure of an amount of Rs.1 Crore, Investigating Agency could collect more amount to the tune of Rs.5 Crores at the instance of the other accused, who were present when the raid was carried out and, therefore, it is submitted that such person should not be released on bail.
Page 9 of 16
R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER 4.3 He would further submit that a chit written by
Narayan Sai in Sindhi language, which was collected by him during his visit in lock up and which was handed over to one Naresh @ Rupabhai Mankani at Ahmedabad, in which, it was referred that the amount of Rs.1 Crore was to be given to the present applicant to be paid. Accordingly the said Naresh @ Rupabhai had given Rs.1 Crore to the present applicant. Therefore, it is established that the applicant is the key person in the entire scam and, therefore being an influential person, he shall not be released on bail.
4.4. Mr.P.K.Jani, learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon the decision delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1648 of 2012 as well as latest decision dated 7/10/2014 delivered by learned Single Judge of State of Tamil Nadu in Criminal Appeal No.835 of 2014 with 836, 837 and 838 of 2014 and submit that the person, who is involved in the case of corruption, shall not be released on bail.
5. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers of investigation as well as the order dated 23/06/2014 passed by Page 10 of 16 R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.8082 of 2014; order dated 04/08/2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.10299 of 2014 with Criminal Misc. Application No.11590 of 2014, by which, Mr.Chandubhai Mohanbhai Kumbhani (PSI) and Naresh @ Rupabhai Bhoglamal Mankani, (who has paid Rs.1 Crore to this applicant), has been enlarged on bail, by a detailed order. By another order dated 08/09/2014 passed in Criminal Misc.Application No.12424 of 2014 Mr.Ketanbhai Mahadevbhai Patel has been enlarged on regular bail by this Court as well as who has arranged Rs.4 Crores has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 08/09/2014 in Criminal Misc.Application No.13006 of 2014, by which, Mr.Hasmukhbhai @ Hasudada Upadhyay has been enlarged on regular bail. Mr.Bhadreshbhai Manharbhai Patel has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14/10/2014 in Criminal Misc. Application No.15189 of 2014, who have indirectly helped the main accused in the crime.
6. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions, while dealing with the application u/s.439 of the Code, the Court has not to deal with the evidence in detail and scrutinize the same. However, since Mr.P.K.Jani, learned Additional Advocate General has requested to assign some Page 11 of 16 R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER reasons, I would like to say that the police witnesses namely Limjibhai Gamit, who had travelled along with Mr.Kumbhani and who said that the present applicant had travelled along with Mr.Kumbhani has not been identified the present applicant since Investigating Agency has not held any Test Identification Parade. Similar is the case of Police witness Mr.Naresh @ Rupabhai Mankani, who was in the lock upon when the present applicant has alleged to have visited Narayan Sai. Similar is the case of Bharat , who was present at the lock up when the present applicant alleged to have visit the lock up of DCB Police Station, Surat.
7. I have considered the statement of Mr.Jabba, Reader Police Inspector to whom Narayan Sai had given details about Mr.Kumbhani and the present applicant. It appears from the statement of Mr.Jabba that information was given by Narayan Sai, who is one of the accused in the matter. As per his statement, he had talked with the present applicant, however, Investigating Agency has not collected details about the mobile of the said Mr.Jabba and therefore, it creates doubt whether he had talked with the applicant or not. So far as payment of Rs.1 Crore is concerned, the person, who has given the amount of Rs.1 Crore to the present Page 12 of 16 R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER applicant namely Naresh @ Rupabhai Mankani has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04/08/2014 in Criminal Misc. Application No.11590 of 2014.
I have also considered the fact that the Police Inspector, who had alleged to have been joined hands with the present applicant, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide detailed order dated 04/08/2014 in Criminal Misc. Application No.10299 of 2014.
8. It is also an undisputed fact that the present applicant is not a public servant as defined under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Considering gravity of the offence, maximum punishment prescribed for such offence is five years. In case of Sanjay Chandra (Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the investigation is over and charge-sheet has already been filed, the person shall be put at liberty in such type of offence unless there is likelihood of fleeing from justice and tampering with the evidence. The judgements relied upon by Mr.P.K.Jani, are not applicable in the present case since the same are with regard to bail after conviction in huge scam.
9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of Page 13 of 16 R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER the present case as well as the fact that the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed and the applicant is behind the bar since December, 2013 and also considering the role played by the applicant and also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1SCC 40, I am of the opinion that the present application requires consideration. Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is hereby ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the offence being CR No. I-37 of 2013 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat, on executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lacs only) with two local sureties of Rs.50,000/- each and subject to the conditions that the applicant shall:
[a] not take undue advantage of his liberty or misuse the liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender his passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
Page 14 of 16
R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER [e] not enter into the District Surat and shall provide address where he is going to stay and mark his presence before the DCB Crime, Ahmedabad on alternate Monday for a period of six months and, thereafter, on any day of first week of each calendar month for a period of one year between 9.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. He shall be permitted to enter Surat District only in case of attendance in the Court or whenever called by Investigating Agency.
[f] furnish latest address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
10. The Authorities shall release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bonds to be executed before the learned Lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law. At the trial, learned 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. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
Page 15 of 16
R/CR.MA/15037/2014 ORDER
(A.J.DESAI, J.)
*dipti
Page 16 of 16