Gujarat High Court
Prasanba Ranubha Vaghela vs State Of on 8 May, 2013
Author: Anant S.Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
PRASANBA RANUBHA VAGHELA....Applicant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s) R/CR.MA/3720/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL ) NO. 3720 of 2013 ================================================================ PRASANBA RANUBHA VAGHELA....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR JV VAGHELA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR.D K.PUJ, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR.L.R. PUJARI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR.S.I. NANAVATY, SENIOR COUNSEL, for the Complainant ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 08/05/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. This application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail is filed by the applicant, a female accused, in connection with first information report registered at C.R.No.I-67/2013 with Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
2.1 On perusal of relevant records of the applicant, this Court, on 6.3.2013 passed the following order:
RULE returnable on 15th March, 2013.
Learned APP Mr. Maulik G. Nanavaty waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short hereinafter referred to as the Code) in connection with First Information Report registered as I-C.R. No.67/2013 with Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavaty for the applicant would contend that registration of the First Information Report against the applicant is with a view to pressurize her husband who is a broker and in the business of land transactions and to enforce the alleged Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 17.01.2011, admittedly not signed by the applicant.
The case of the complainant is that the husband of the applicant was a party in preparation of the above MOU and assurance was given that the MOU would be signed accordingly and on the next day, it was returned with signatures of owners of the land. It was further assured by husband of the applicant that he would get the title of the land in question cleared and executed another MOU with partners of the complainant.
The complainant paid an amount in cash on different dates, i.e. 08.02.2011, 09.02.2011 and 11.02.2011 Rs.14,00,000/=, Rs.30,00,000/= and Rs.20,00,000/= respectively, for which signatures were also obtained. It is further a case of the complainant that the following amounts were paid in cash on :-
17.03.2011 Rs.40,00,000/=, 23.03.2011 Rs.20,00,000/=, 24.03.2011 Rs.50,00,000/=,
03.05.2011 Rs.20,00,000/= and Rs.10,00,000/=, 04.05.2011 Rs.10,00,000/=, 18.06.2011 Rs.10,00,000/=, 15.07.2011 Rs.35,00,000/=, 20.07.2011 Rs. 5,00,000/= and 25.07.2011 Rs. 5,00,000/= Hence, a total cash amount of Rs.3,85,00,000/= was paid.
It is submitted that some cheques qua accused No.5, 6 and 7 were returned, cheques were issued and total amount was paid by cheques to the tune of Rs.66,35,000/= and an additional amount of Rs.45,80,000/= in cash was paid.
However, since the husband of the applicant could not secure clear title of the land, the payment was stopped by the complainant and on enquiry, it was noticed by the complainant that the original land owners had not signed the MOU. Even the Notice issued in the newspaper reveal that husband of the complainant had committed fraud and transferred the land to the applicant. Civil Suit No.349/2012 also came to be filed for specific performance of the Agreement and for cancellation of Sale Deed in favour of the applicant herein by the original owners of the land.
In the above backdrop of cases of the complainant, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Nanavaty would contend that in a Suit filed in the complaint, it is stated that Rs.1 Crore in cash was paid and now the amount is exaggerated to the tune of more than Rs.4,51,35,000/=. It is also submitted that there is no case against the complainant and recovery of the alleged amount is sought to be effected by arraigning the complainant who is wife of the broker of the land in question. Besides, on the basis of false allegations, the applicant is sought to be implicated in a criminal case where the transactions are of civil in nature. The applicant not being a party and in a case even for breach of MOU / Agreement, remedy is already undertaken by the complainant. In the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail as she is ready and willing to join the investigation and is not likely to flee from the course of justice.
Considering overall facts and circumstances and the manner in which the First Information Report is registered by the P.S.O. Of Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad for the alleged offences and bare allegations of payment of cash to the tune of Rs.3,85,00,000/= and further Rs.45,08,000/= in the subject complaint for which even prima-facie investigation is to be carried out by the investigating agency whether accounting entries were made in the accounts books maintained by the complainant and his partners and for such a huge transaction in cash, the concerned Incharge Income Tax Officer of the Department of Income Tax of the Ward Area in which the complainant and his partners are residing and are carrying out their business be informed so that likelihood of evasion of tax could be avoided.
The Director General of Police, State of Gujarat may look into the nature of the complaint filed by the complainant, arising out of breach of MOU, where civil litigation is already initiated and submit a Report on the returnable date, i.e. 15th March, 2013, failing which appropriate action, in accordance with law, will be taken.
Meanwhile, there shall be ad-interim relief against arrest of the female applicant herein. Direct Service is permitted.
Copy of this order be given to the learned APP Mr. Maulik G. Nanavaty.
2.2 On the returnable date of hearing, Investigating Authority has presented papers of the case so far investigated and, later on, report is placed on 6.5.2013 by the Police Inspector, Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City and compliance of the order dated 6.3.2013.
Alongwith this application, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4595 of 2013 had also been filed by one Ranubha Bhurubha Vaghela, who is husband of the applicant of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3720 of 2013. The subject complaint has basic and substantial allegations against said Ranubha Bhurubha Vaghela- the applicant of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4595 of 2013. On further hearing on the date when both these applications were listed together and heard accordingly.
Shri S.I. Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant appeared and stated that so far as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3720 of 2013 is concerned, certain directions were given in para 6 of the order dated 6.3.2013 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3720 of 2013, though the order is in interim nature, but, complainant thereof, may cause undue hardship and the complainant, who is invoked machinery of law, will have to face queries from the department of Income Tax. It is, therefore, submitted that in the matter when an application for bail is to be considered, directions of such nature are unwarranted. Barring the above, Shri S.I. Naravaty, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant states that the complainant does not press for grant of anticipatory bail to female accused, if otherwise found. Upon consideration of overall facts and circumstances and what is recorded in the order dated 6.3.2013 about transactions taken place between the Broker and the complainant and payment made on various dates have reflected in para 4 of the above order dated 6.3.2013 and, for which, civil suit is filed with regard to cancellation of Sale Deed, namely, subsequent transactions of the applicant of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3720 of 2013 and owner of the land and that, a female accused is not subjected to the custodial interrogation when she is available for investigation and no criminal antecedents surfaces on record, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3720 of 2013.
With regard to submissions made by Shri S.I. Nanavaty, learned Senior counsel for the complainant about observations and directions containing in para 6 and 7 are concerned, the Police Inspector, Incharge of Naranpura Police Station, has placed a report on record on 6.5.2013, is ordered to be taken on record, on which, substantially, complied with the directions contained in the order dated 6.3.2013 and therefore, no further directions or compliance is necessary with a clarification that investigation is to be carried out in fair and impartial manner without any kind of prejudice in accordance with law.
4. Heard learned APP for the respondent-State.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations role attributed to the accused and punishment prescribed for the alleged offences without discussing the evidence in detail at this stage, 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 Mhetre v. State of Maharastra & 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. Considering the facts and circumstances as above and willingness to cooperate with the investigation and further availability during the course of trial, if necessary, she is ordered to be enlarged on bail.
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.I-67/2013 with Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of like amount of following conditions:-
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available interrogation whenever required.
(b) shall remain present at concerned police station on 17.5..2013 between 11:00 am to 2:00 pm;
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;
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 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. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
9. Rule is made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
Direct Service is permitted.
(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) chandresh Page 7 of 7