ORDER : 1. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-57 of 2016 registered with Katargam Police Station, District Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is mainly alleged in the FIR as under: That in the year 2011, when the applicant was one of the Directors of R.J. Square Link Pvt. Ltd., i.e. the company of complainant, he has taken loan worth Rs.117 crores from the State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda and Bank of India for his own business by showing the company of the complainant as guarantor without the knowledge and permission of the complainant. Moreover, an illegal resolution is passed by forging the letter pad of the company and rubber stamp of the complainant, whereby it is resolved that applicant is authorized to sign the documents of loan. The said resolution is produced before the concerned Banks without the permission and knowledge of the complainant and other Directors of the company. The applicant has also forged the seal of the company which is used in various loan documents and thereby, applicant has obtained loan of Rs.117 crores from the aforesaid banks. Thus, the applicant has committed offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Yogesh Lakhani assisted by learned advocate Mr. P.M. Lakhani for the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent State and learned advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat for the original First Informant. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Lakhani for the applicant has referred the allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR in question, copy of which is placed on record at page 33 and thereafter mainly contended that for the alleged incident which had taken place somewhere in the year 2011, FIR is lodged in the year 21.05.2016. Thus, there is delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that as per the allegations levelled against the applicant, applicant and one co-accused Rajesh Vakeria are Directors of Raj International. The said company took loan from three different banks for the purpose of business. Thus, there is delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that as per the allegations levelled against the applicant, applicant and one co-accused Rajesh Vakeria are Directors of Raj International. The said company took loan from three different banks for the purpose of business. However, the said company could not repay the loan to the concerned banks and therefore the account was declared as NPA. Therefore, the concerned banks have initiated proceedings against the company, wherein applicant is one of the Directors, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). It is submitted that after the investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer initially filed ‘B’ Summary. However, thereafter the investigation is changed and now the applicant is arrested and he is in jail since 15.11.2019. The charge-sheet is also filed against the applicant and other co-accused. It is further submitted that co-accused – Rajesh Vakeria against whom allegation of forgery is levelled and who is also one of the Directors of Raj International has been enlarged on regular bail by the concerned Sessions Court. Learned counsel Mr. Lakhani has referred the order passed by the concerned Sessions Court in the case of co-accused, copy of which is placed on record at page 248. At this stage, learned counsel Mr. Lakhani has also referred the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer in case of co-accused, copy of which is placed on record at page 336. Learned counsel Mr. Lakhani has mainly referred the averments made in the affidavit of the Investigating Officer i.e. page nos. 347 and 348 of the compilation. After reading the same, it is contended that it is alleged against the co-accused Rajesh Vakeria that he has also signed certain forms though he was aware that the corporate guarantee documents are forged and thereby he has abetted the present applicant. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Lakhani would thereafter contend that property of the complainant has not been mortgaged with the concerned bank and the only allegations made by the complainant against the applicant and other co-accused is that corporate guarantee of the complainant has been forged and placed before the concerned bank and thereby the loan was obtained by the applicant and other co-accused. Learned counsel Mr. Lakhani has referred page 260 of the compilation i.e. the list of properties of the present applicant. Learned counsel Mr. Lakhani has referred page 260 of the compilation i.e. the list of properties of the present applicant. It is submitted that all these properties of the applicant have been mortgaged with the concerned banks and therefore the public money is secured. It is further submitted that the concerned bank has already started proceedings for disposal of the properties of the applicant, which are mortgaged with the concerned bank and for that purpose learned counsel has referred the list produced at page 264. It is contended that, till date, bank has received more than Rs.9 crore and so far as property mentioned in the list at serial No.7 to 9, the concerned bank has not given any details about the amount which has been received by the bank after disposal of the said properties. 6. Learned counsel has, thereafter, submitted that the applicant has already requested the concerned bank that the corporate guarantee of R.J. Square Link Private Ltd. i.e. the company of the complainant be replaced. However, the concerned bank i.e. the State Bank of India, vide communication dated 18.12.2012, had not accepted the said request of the applicant. Copy of the said letter is placed on record at page 317. At this stage, it is also pointed out from the document placed on record at page 318, that recently, during the pendency of this application, once again, the applicant has made a request on 07.09.2020 to the General Manager/Appropriate Authority of the State Bank of India and requested for replacement of the corporate guarantor. It is submitted that till date applicant has not received any reply. However, under the instruction, it is specifically contended by learned counsel Mr. Lakhani that applicant is ready and willing to replace the corporate guarantee and thereby request the concerned bank to discharge the complainant. 7. At this stage, learned counsel would further contend from the undertaking given by the applicant before the DRT, copy of which is placed on record at page 320, that applicant is ready and willing to settle the outstanding dues of the concerned bank. 7. At this stage, learned counsel would further contend from the undertaking given by the applicant before the DRT, copy of which is placed on record at page 320, that applicant is ready and willing to settle the outstanding dues of the concerned bank. So far as M/s. Raj International Ltd. is concerned, it is stated in the said undertaking that Raj International Ltd. has mortgaged number of properties of the company as well as personal properties of the applicant and his family members as well as other Directors and therefore the outstanding dues of the bank can be easily recovered from the mortgaged properties of Raj International and therefore no economical liability is likely to arise upon M/s. R.J. Square Link Pvt. Ltd. Thus, learned counsel Mr. Lakhani would submit that applicant is ready and willing to abide by the said undertaking given before the DRT if the applicant is enlarged on bail. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Lakhani further submits that the alleged forged documents are already recovered by the Investigating Agency and therefore presence of the applicant would not be required. It is further submitted that the alleged offence are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the applicant is not having any previous history of criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that Investigating Agency has not shown any apprehension that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he would not be available at the time of trial. At this stage, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , and more particularly, the observations made in paragraph nos. 14 and 25. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Lakhani for the applicant, therefore, urged that this application be allowed and the applicant be enlarged on bail on suitable terms and conditions. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent – State has vehemently opposed this application and referred the report submitted by the Investigating Agency. After referring to the same, it is contended that further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code is still going on. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent – State has vehemently opposed this application and referred the report submitted by the Investigating Agency. After referring to the same, it is contended that further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code is still going on. It is further submitted that there is ample material in the charge-sheet papers against the applicant that he has forged the corporate guarantee and other documents and therefore prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that public money is involved and therefore in this matter this Court may not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant herein. He, therefore, urged that this application be dismissed. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat appearing for the complainant has also vehemently opposed this application. Learned advocate has referred the affidavit-in-reply filed by the complainant and thereafter contended that though applicant and other co-accused have resigned in the year 2012 from R.J. Square Link Pvt. Ltd. and incorporated new company i.e. Raj International. A forged corporate guarantee of R.J. Square Link Pvt. Ltd. was placed before three different banks and thereby they have obtained the loan from the concerned banks. It is submitted that there is ample material in the papers of the charge-sheet against the applicant that he has forged corporate guarantee and as the loan amount has not been paid by the applicant and other co-accused, the concerned account was declared as NPA and the concerned bank has initiated proceedings against them before the DRT. It is also contended that because of the alleged offence committed by the applicant and other co-accused, the complainant is not in a position to get loan from any bank. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Popat has, thereafter, referred the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail application as well as quashing application filed by the applicant and thereafter contended that applicant is the beneficiary of the transaction in question and therefore when the huge public money is involved, this Court may not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. 13. Alternatively, it is contended by learned advocate Mr. 13. Alternatively, it is contended by learned advocate Mr. Popat that if this Court is inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant, suitable condition be imposed that the applicant shall replace the corporate guarantee of the complainant within stipulated time limit. 14. It is also contended that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) would not be applicable. He, therefore, urged that this application be dismissed. 15. 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. 16. This Court has considered following aspects; (a) applicant is in jail since 15.11.2019 i.e. since last more than 10 months; (b) investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed; (c) the alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate; (d) the alleged forged documents are already recovered by the Investigating Agency. Therefore, no further investigation is required. No doubt, as contended by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval, further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code is going on, however, the same is with regard to the involvement of the bank officials. (e) the concerned bank has already initiated the proceedings against the applicant before the DRT. Said proceedings are still pending. It is specifically contended by learned counsel Mr. Lakhani that various properties of Raj International and personal properties of the applicant are mortgaged with the concerned bank. This Court has considered the list, copy of which is placed on record at page 260 of the compilation. From the said list, it is revealed that 25 properties of Raj International as well as the applicant and co-accused have been mortgaged with the concerned bank. Learned counsel has specifically contended that if the aforesaid properties are sold by the concerned bank, applicant has no objection. This Court, therefore, while considering this application, has kept in view the aforesaid aspect. (f) it is also contended by learned counsel Mr. Learned counsel has specifically contended that if the aforesaid properties are sold by the concerned bank, applicant has no objection. This Court, therefore, while considering this application, has kept in view the aforesaid aspect. (f) it is also contended by learned counsel Mr. Lakhani that bank has already started process of disposing of the properties of Raj International as well as the applicant and 9 properties, details of which are given at page 264 of the compilation, have been disposed of by the bank and an amount of Rs.9 crore has already been recovered by the concerned bank and so far as properties at serial nos.7 to 9 in the said list are concerned, till date, bank has not given any detail as to how much amount the bank has received on selling of the said properties. (g) this Court has also considered the undertaking given by the applicant before the DRT, copy of which is placed on record at page 320. In para 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the said undertaking, applicant has stated as under: “4. Without entering into merits and without prejudice to my rights and contentions and defenses which are ordinarily available to me in accordance with law, I hereby states and submits that M/s. Raj International Limited is ready and willing to settle the so called outstanding dues of the concerned banks. 5. It is to be stated further that, M/s. Raj International Ltd. has mortgaged so many properties of its own company as well as certain personal properties of the present deponent Mr. Jagdish Bodra and his family member and of other directors of M/s. Raj International Ltd. which are sufficient for payment of all the outstanding dues of the concerned bank and therefore, the outstanding dues of the bank can be easily recovered from the mortgage properties of Raj International Ltd. and its allied persons, and therefore, no economical liability is likely to arises upon M/s. R. J. Square Link Pvt. Limited. It is to be stated further that, none of the property of M/s. R.J. Square Link Pvt. Ltd. is mortgaged with the bank. 6. xxx xxx xxx 7. It is to be stated further that, none of the property of M/s. R.J. Square Link Pvt. Ltd. is mortgaged with the bank. 6. xxx xxx xxx 7. It is to be stated further that, the present deponent is quite ready and willing, and hereby undertakes, that, whatever financial and economical liabilities of the outstanding banks loan/dues (subject to OTS) are concern, the same shall be fully and completely (subject to OTS) be satisfied by the Raj International Ltd. Company itself and by directors of Raj International Ltd. including the present deponent, and in any circumstances, M/s. R.J. Square Link Pvt. Ltd. or its directors would not be liable for any payment in respect of outstanding dues of the banks with M/s. Raj International Ltd. 8. It is respectfully submitted that M/s. Raj International Limited intends to and willing to change the corporate guarantor and it has formally written a letter seeking permission and consent of the Bank. Copy of the letter is annexed hereto. It is submitted that since I am confined in jail and its beyond the reach of my family members to find another Corporate Guarantor or to get it replaced, I shall manage to find and get replaced another corporate guarantor soon after my getting the relief in the pending bail application before Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. I therefore seek a permission of this Hon’ble Tribunal also to permit me to change the corporate Guarantor at the place of M/s. R. J. Square Link Pvt. Ltd. This prayer of mine is without prejudice to my rights to raise all legal contentions available to me under the law and this may not be construed to be an admission of dues and outstanding as claimed by the bank.” (h) thus, from the aforesaid undertaking, it is clear that applicant has shown willingness to settle the outstanding dues of the concerned bank. Various properties of the applicant and other co-accused have been mortgaged with the bank. Thus, the public money is already secured. The applicant has also shown willingness to settle the account with the bank under OTS. Various properties of the applicant and other co-accused have been mortgaged with the bank. Thus, the public money is already secured. The applicant has also shown willingness to settle the account with the bank under OTS. It is specifically stated that whatever financial and economical liabilities of the outstanding banks loan/dues (subject to OTS) are concerned, the same shall be fully and completely (subject to OTS) be satisfied by the Raj International Ltd. company itself and by directors of Raj International Ltd. including the present applicant, and in any circumstances, M/s. R.J. Square Link Pvt. Ltd. or its directors would not be liable for any payment in respect of outstanding dues of the banks with M/s. Raj International Ltd. Thus, the complainant is also secured; it is also stated in the said undertaking that M/s. Raj International Limited intends and willing to change the corporate guarantor and he shall manage to find and get replaced another corporate guarantor soon after he releases on bail. (i) it is submitted by learned counsel Mr. Lakhani that applicant has no previous history of criminal antecedent. Further, no apprehension is shown by the learned advocates appearing for the respondents that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he would not be available at the time of trial or he will tamper with any evidence. (j) in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 14 and 25 as under: “14. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 25. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the Courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds:- The primary ground is that offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer ; the secondary ground is that the possibility of the accused persons tempering with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment of the offence is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. This Court in Gurcharan Singh and Ors. Vs. State, AIR 1978 SC 179 observed that two paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure of the fair trial of the case. Though, this aspect is dealt by the High Court in its impugned order, in our view, the same is not convincing.” Keeping in view the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. 17. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra). 18. Hence, the present application is allowed. 17. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra). 18. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R.No.I-57 of 2016 registered with Katargam Police Station, District Surat 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 territory of Gujarat State 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 six 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; [g] replace the corporate guarantee of M/S. R.J. Square Link Pvt. Ltd. within a period of four months from the date of his release from the jail, as undertaken by him before the DRT in para 8 of his undertaking. It is open for the concerned bank and/or DRT to consider the request of the applicant for replacement of corporate guarantor. 19. The authorities shall adhere to its own circular regarding Covid-19 and thereafter 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 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. 20. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 21. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 20. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 21. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/Authority through Fax or Email. 22. It is clarified that if the applicant is failed to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, it would be open for the prosecution and/or complainant to file an application for cancellation of bail of the applicant.