Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 239 (GUJ)

DIPAKBHAI JAYANTILAL PANDYA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2008-05-15

M.R.SHAH

body2008
( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Dipen Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. ( 2 ) PRESENT petition has been filed by the petitioner original accused for releasing him on bail in connection with the complaint being CR No. I-13 of 2003 registered with Gandhinagar Economic Zone, CID Branch, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under sections 407, 420, 467, 468, 120b of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) LEARNED advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 12/10/2003; charge has been framed on 7/9/2006 and looking to the backlog pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, number of witnesses to be examined and the documents to be produced in the Criminal Case No. 7 of 2004, it is not likely that the trial is concluded in near future. ( 4 ) LEARNED advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that other co-accused are already released on bail and all the evidences are in the form of documents which are in the custody of the investigating officer and therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the same by the petitioner and therefore, it is requested to release the petitioner on bail. ( 5 ) LEARNED advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also relied upon sec. 436 (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 6 ) THE petition is opposed by Mr. Dipen Desai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent State. It is submitted that present application is successive bail application and there are no changed circumstances. It is further submitted that earlier the petitioner had preferred Special Criminal Application No. 655 of 2007 for releasing him on bail invoking sec. 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and this Court vide order dtd. 19/7/2007 dismissed the said petition by observing that there was no delay on the part of the prosecution but in fact, the petitioner was responsible for delay and therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. It is also submitted that even earlier also the bail applications submitted by the petitioner has been dismissed and/or withdrawn by the petitioner when this Court was not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence. It is also submitted that even earlier also the bail applications submitted by the petitioner has been dismissed and/or withdrawn by the petitioner when this Court was not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence. It is submitted that so far as other co-accused are concerned, they being lady were released on bail and therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on bail merely because other two co-accused being lady were released on bail. It is also further submitted that so far as invocation of sec. 436a of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, considering the sentence provided for the offence punishable under sec. 467 which may upto life imprisonment, the petitioner is not required to be released on bail. Hence, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. ( 7 ) HEARD the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. ( 8 ) AT the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner is charged for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 406, 420 and 120b of Indian Penal Code and the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. It is alleged that the petitioner has defrauded Federal Bank by taking advances to the huge amount by creating forged and fabricated documents and thereby huge loss to the tune of more than 87 lacs has been caused. This is a successive bail application submitted by the petitioner and there are no changed circumstances. Earlier the petitioner had preferred application for releasing him on bail which came to be dismissed on merits and/or withdrawn by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Even the petitioner had also preferred Special Criminal Application No. 655 of 2007 for releasing him on bail invoking sec. 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which came to be dismissed by this Court by observing that there was no delay on the part of the prosecution in proceeding further with the trial. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to point out any change in circumstances except that thereafter nine months have been passed. It is also required to be noted that thereafter the petitioner had preferred another application for releasing him on bail which came to be dismissed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dtd. It is also required to be noted that thereafter the petitioner had preferred another application for releasing him on bail which came to be dismissed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dtd. 15/2/2008, against which the petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision Application Nos. 58 and 59 of 2008 and both the revision applications are dismissed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Ahmedabad vide judgement and order dtd. 25/2/2008 and the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and complete the same within a period of six months from the date of said order. Under the circumstances, looking to the gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. So far as invocation of sec. 436a of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, it appears that the petitioner is in custody since October, 2003 and the petitioner is also charged for the offence punishable under secs. 467 of the Indian Penal Code for which the maximum sentence provided is life imprisonment. Under the circumstances also, the petitioner is not required to be released on bail. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above and this being a successive bail application, the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned trial court is hereby directed to comply with the directions issued by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 58 and 59 of 2008 vide judgement and order dtd. 25/2/2008. Rule is discharged.