Naushad Zakiyuddin Ranguni vs State Of Gujarat on 23 January, 2020

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Naushad Zakiyuddin Ranguni vs State Of Gujarat on 23 January, 2020

Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi

       R/CR.MA/21416/2019                                                ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 21416 of 2019
==========================================================
                NAUSHAD ZAKIYUDDIN RANGUNI
                           Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGESH LAKHANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR PRAVIN
GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. VIPUL B SUNDESHA(6689) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
                    Date : 23/01/2020
                     ORAL ORDER

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I7 of 2019 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, District Ahmedabad, for offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

3. Learned advocate Mr.P.P. Majmudar appearing for the original first informant has opposed this application and submitted that the present applicant has duped the first informant. Learned advocate has referred the allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR and, thereafter, Page 1 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 12 06:19:41 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/21416/2019 ORDER submitted that when the applicant, after committing the alleged offences, left the country and settled in Dubai, this Court may not exercise discretion in his favour.

4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent State has also opposed this application and submitted that six different FIRs are registered against the applicant. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also referred the papers of the chargesheet and, thereafter, pointed out the role attributed to the applicant. It is submitted that when the applicant has committed the alleged offences, this Court may not entertain this application.

5. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

7. This Court has considered following aspects,

(a) the applicant is in Jail since 31.07.2019;

(b) investigation is over and chargesheet is filed;

(c) the offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and are triable by the Court of Page 2 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 12 06:19:41 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/21416/2019 ORDER Magistrate;

(d) from the averments and allegations made in the FIR, it is revealed that the transaction in dispute had taken place during the period between 2013 to 2017, for which, the FIR is registered in January, 2019;

(e) it is contended by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant that the first informant has in fact acted only as a broker and the first informant has not invested any amount. It is pointed out from the statement given by witness Safakat Saifuddin Poonawala, which was recorded on 22.07.2019, a copy of which is placed on record at Page60, that the said witness and his brother Abbas Lokhandwala issued cheque bearing No.000031 in favour of the first informant. Receipt No.1398 was also issued and the first informant has thereafter issued cheque in favour of the Company, in which, the present applicant was one of the Directors. It is, therefore, submitted that the first informant has acted as a broker and the cheque was issued in the name of the Company and not in the personal name of the present applicant;

(f) it is further submitted that now other Directors have executed the Sale Deed with regard to the property in question in favour of witness Safakat Saifuddin Poonawala and his brother Abbas Lokhandwala. In the said Sale Deed, cheque No.000031, for which, Page 3 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 12 06:19:41 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/21416/2019 ORDER receipt No.1398 dated 26.06.2013 is issued, is reflected as an amount of consideration. Copy of the said Sale Deed is placed on record at Page22 of the compilation. After referring to the same, it is contended by the learned Senior Advocate that when the Sale Deed is already executed in favour of the concerned person on whose favour, cheque was issued by the first informant, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed the alleged offences;

(g) It is also submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that now Civil Suit is already filed by the first important for the same subject property and even proceedings filed under Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) by the first informant is not entertained by the RERA Authority. However, it is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.P.P. Majmudar appearing for the first informant that against the order passed by the RERA Authority, the appeal is filed which is pending. However, the fact remains that civil proceedings are pending before the concerned Civil Court as well as RERA Appellate Authority;

(h) it is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant that for the flat situated at Sharjah, Dubai, reference is made in the FIR, the first informant was not the owner and in fact, the said flat is sold by the original owner in Page 4 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 12 06:19:41 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/21416/2019 ORDER the year 2017;

(i) it is also contended by the learned Senior Advocate that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, for which, Civil Suit is already filed;

(j) it is also submitted that the applicant is enlarged on bail in connection with all the FIRs. However, recently, one of the Directors of the Company where the applicant was Director has filed the FIR;

(k) I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. I have also examined the investigation papers as well as the material placed on record during the course of hearing of this application;

(l) it is required to be noted that appropriate condition can be imposed while enlarging the applicant on bail so that his presence can be secured during the course of trial; and

(m) looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the case is triable by the Court of Magistrate and as civil proceedings are pending before the concerned Civil Court for the subject property, I am inclined to consider the case of the applicant.

8. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

9. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 12 06:19:41 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/21416/2019 ORDER bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I7 of 2019 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, District Ahmedabad, on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the concerned trial Court;

[e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station between 1st to 10th day of every English calendar month for a period of twelve months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;

[f] furnish the present address of 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 the concerned trial court;

10. The authorities will 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 Page 6 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 12 06:19:41 IST 2021 R/CR.MA/21416/2019 ORDER take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the 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.

11. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.

12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) piyush Page 7 of 7 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 12 06:19:41 IST 2021

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court