Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 163 (GUJ)

Shailesh Bhanwarlal Bhandari v. State Of Gujarat

2023-01-19

GITA GOPI

body2023
ORDER : 1. All the anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for the sake of brevity) are against 3 FIRs i.e. (i) FIR no. 11216025210042/2021 with Santej Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offence under Sections 65A, 65(e), 116B, 81, 98(2) of the Prohibition Act, was registered on 4.2.2021 at 12.05 hrs. The said FIR is with the allegation that about 898 bottles of 220 country liquor and foreign liquor, worth Rs.33,71,016/- were found at the parking shade of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. in Eicher vehicle no. GJ-18 U-8593; (ii) FIR no. 11216025210044/2021 registered with Santej Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offence under Sections 65A, 65(e), 116B and 81 of the Prohibition Act was registered on 4.2.2021 at 17.40 hrs. with the allegation that 64 bottles of country liquor and foreign liquor worth Rs.81,404/- were found at A/3-1, Ganesh Enclav, Village Palodiya; (iii) FIR no. 11216025210045/2021 registered with Santej Police Station, Gandhinagar under Sections 65A, 65(e), 116B, 81 of the Prohibition Act was registered on 4.2.2021 at 20.15 hrs., alleging that about 36 bottles country and foreign liquor worth Rs.44,750/- were found at 8, Vrajgopi Bungalows-1, Village Palodiya. 2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. B.B. Naik for the appellant – Shailesh Bhanwarlal Bhandari submits that as per the FIR no. 11216025210042/2021, while complainant was on patrolling, he has received an information from his superior officer that GST officer of Ahmedabad were conducting the raid under the GST Act in Electrotherm (India) Ltd. at Palodiya Village and for that purpose, for law and order, provision under PCR-246 of In-charge ASI, Amratbhai Raychandbhai, buckle no.1155 was sent and as per the mobile information, in parking cum wooden parking area of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. at Village Palodiya, Eicher vehicle was containing boxes of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. and that in the earlier area, boxes were filled up with papers while interior on being checked, the boxes were found having liquor and therefore, the complainant was instructed to verify and according to the instructions, he had come with 5 Unarmed Head Constables and on verification, he found that Eicher vehicle was covered with tarpaulin and the registration number of the vehicle was GJ-18 U-8593. Mr. Mr. Naik submits that on verification, two of the Panchas were called at the place but both the Panchas were not from the nearby area nor from the same village rather from Village Khatraj and Santej and submits that it is against the provision of Section 100 Cr.P.C., where the officer has to ensure that two independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality are called during the search. Mr. Naik submits that the whole procedure was in contravention of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. Further, referring to the FIR, he submits that raid of GST officer was in process and Eicher vehicle was searched and about 50 boxes were found which were carried to the Police Station. Mr. Naik submits that the whole procedure is faulty and that has created doubt in registration of the FIR as no Panchnama has been conducted at the place of incident as alleged which is a parking cum wooden parking area of the Company which according to Mr. Naik is not in the premises of the Company. Mr. Naik submits that the applicant is Managing Director of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. and he cannot be made vicariously liable for any such act, where the Company has more than 1200 workers and the Company itself owns about 60 vehicles which are driven by various drivers going all over India. Mr. Naik further submits that at the relevant time, there was GST raid, which itself suggests that the Company was under investigation and search was conducted by the officers. He further submits that there has been series of litigations between the brothers who are also Directors of the Company. It is submitted that both the families of the brothers are in inimical relationship and the dispute is regarding holding the management of the Company. 3. Senior Advocate Mr. Naik submits that the Company is well known for manufacturing Induction Furnace TMT bars, DI pipe in the world. The turnover of the Company is 3,199 crores and more than 5000 direct and indirect employees are connected with the Company and the applicant, as Managing Director of the Company, would not have any personal knowledge of the activities of the employees of the Company. Senior Advocate Mr. Naik submits that at present the applicant is aged 64 years of age and is suffering from various medical ailments. Senior Advocate Mr. Naik submits that at present the applicant is aged 64 years of age and is suffering from various medical ailments. He has suffered from heart attack and due to which sent has been inserted in his heart and is suffering from Compressive Myelopathy at thoracic and cevical levels. The applicant had undergone surgery of Dorsal spine surgery in September, 2016 and thereafter, surgery of Cervical corpectomy and cervical plating in November, 2016 at Zydus hospital and thereafter, in December, 2019 primary progressive Multiple Sclerosis, due to which the applicant is facing difficulties in walking and is taking long treatment and follow up at various hospitals. Brother of the applicant – Dr. Nagesh Bhandari who is surgeon is also treating the applicant and has certified that the applicant is suffering from various other ailments. 4. Mr. Naik submits that the applicant is a businessman and mainly Director of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. since 2007 and the Company has been awarded various awards and recognitions since 1987 and in the year 2017, the applicant got award of Employee Engagement Achiever Awards of the year 2017. He further submits that there are internal disputes going on within the Company. He submits that GST raid was held and during those search, these 3 FIRs have been registered. 5. Mr. Naik submits that the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company was scheduled to be held on 11.2.2021, wherein the brother of the applicant–Mukesh Bhandari, the Director, Ex-Chairman/ Managing Director of the Company with malicious intention had moved agenda to remove the applicant immediately from the post of Managing Director of the Company which Mr. Naik suggests malicious intention towards the applicant. 6. Mr. Naik submits that series of litigations between the brothers suggests that the intention of the brother of the applicant is to see that the present applicant remains in jail and the FIR is nothing but a malicious act with an intention to remove the applicant from the post of Managing Director. 7. Mr. Naik has relied upon the judgments reported in (2003) 2, SCC 202, (1994) 4 SCC 365 and MANU/GS/0210/2017. 8. Senior Advocate Mr. Lakhani submits that the bungalow, wherein the raid was conducted was taken on rent by the Company which was used as Guest House. The said bungalow is not a residential area of the applicant. 7. Mr. Naik has relied upon the judgments reported in (2003) 2, SCC 202, (1994) 4 SCC 365 and MANU/GS/0210/2017. 8. Senior Advocate Mr. Lakhani submits that the bungalow, wherein the raid was conducted was taken on rent by the Company which was used as Guest House. The said bungalow is not a residential area of the applicant. While the FIR itself suggests that the applicant is residing at 129-130, Jayantilal Park, Ambli- Bopal Road, Ahmedabad. The said premises where the raid was conducted is a Guest House which was taken on rent and rent agreement was executed by applicant – Sanjay Joshi being authorized to sign on behalf of the Company. Mr. Lakhani submits that liquor was not found in the conscious possession of the applicant – Shailesh Bhandari nor presence of the applicant was found at the place. He submits that there are all chances of possibility of planting all the contraband liquor and has referred to the health permit to submit that liquor permit for personal consumption has been issued in favour of the applicant; thus, Mr. Lakhani submits that the applicant – Mr. Shailesh Bhandari is a permit holder. Mr. Lakhani submits that on the very same day, offence under the Arms Act was also registered against the applicant though he is a license holder and further submits that for every act of employee, may it criminal, the applicant as Managing Director of the Company cannot be held vicariously liable. Senior Advocate Mr. Lakhani in connection with FIR no. 11216025210044/2021 submits that no Panchas were called at the place. 9. Mr. Lakhani in connection with FIR no. 11216025210045/2021 submits that the Inspector – M.A. Joshi has filed the FIR and under the information received from the GST officer, the Unarmed Head Constable has noted that the GST officers were conducting the proceedings and had found 3 boxes of foreign liquor, and report was handed over to the Unarmed Head Constable – Kanubhai, buckle no. 1564 and submits that 3 boxes were handed over to Unarmed Police Head Constable who with the report had brought all the 3 boxes in the Police Station and thereafter, Panchas were called for and at the Police Station, both the boxes were opened. Mr. Lakhani submits that about 36 bottles have been valued at Rs.44,750/-. 1564 and submits that 3 boxes were handed over to Unarmed Police Head Constable who with the report had brought all the 3 boxes in the Police Station and thereafter, Panchas were called for and at the Police Station, both the boxes were opened. Mr. Lakhani submits that about 36 bottles have been valued at Rs.44,750/-. Had it been so found at the Guest House, then, the Panchnama ought to have been conducted there, rather the police, as were handed over by the GST officer took the boxes at the Police Station. Mr. Lakhani submits that if the fact is to seen them, the Panchnama ought to have been conducted in presence of GST officer at the very place of Guest House, while no such procedure was undertaken. Mr. Lakhani submits that the raid of GST continued from January and suddenly, FIR was registered on 4.2.2021, under such situation, Mr. Lakhani submits that no person would ever think of bringing of any such prohibited articles in the Company premises. The very act of such allegation made by the GST officer smacks malafide when the brother – Mukesh Bhandari is bent upon to remove the applicant from the post of Managing Director of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. 10. For the applicant – Suraj Shailesh Bhandari, Mr. Lakhani submits that there is no prima facie allegation against him, mainly because Suraj Bhandari is full time Director who has been recently appointed in the Company, the attempt had been made to rope him in the alleged offence just merely because he is son of Shailesh Bhandari. 11. For the applicant – Sanjay Mansukhlal Joshi, Senior Advocate Mr. Unwalla submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. As per the affidavit of the investigating officer, just because he is head of HR department and the agreements have been executed by him under the authority, he has been falsely implicated in the matter where the disputes are between two brothers who are the head of the Company. 12. For the applicant – Mukeshkumar Kishorbhai Dabhi, Mr. Unwalla submits that he was Ex- Army man who has served the Army for about 22 years. He had been residing in the premises temporarily as an employee being the security head in-charge and further submits that the distance of the said premises is about 1 km. 12. For the applicant – Mukeshkumar Kishorbhai Dabhi, Mr. Unwalla submits that he was Ex- Army man who has served the Army for about 22 years. He had been residing in the premises temporarily as an employee being the security head in-charge and further submits that the distance of the said premises is about 1 km. away from the Company premises and further states that being an ex-service man, he has registration card for liquor which is for station head quarter at Ahmedabad. It is issued on 26.1.2019 for a period upto 26.11.2022 and further stated that he has been granted health permit to possess and use foreign liquor for personal consumption and further submits that the GST officers had visited the premises of the applicant who is a security head for their raid purpose where he would not at all be connected with the affairs of the Company. 13. Criminal Misc. Application no. 1 of 2021 is filed by Mukesh Bhandari making a prayer that he be joined as party respondent in Criminal Misc. Applications no.3383/21, 3377/21 and 3979/21 contending that all the 3 FIRs have been filed at Santej Police Station and the liquor was found by the GST officer who had raided the premises of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. on 18.1.2021 and has stated that respondent no.1 – Shailesh Bhandari being the Managing Director Incharge of the Company and occupier of the Company site at Palodia and all the business of the Company were being carried out by him, Shailesh Bhandari was present and aware about the GST raid and to evade the paying of GST and to see that no offence of prohibition is registered against Shailesh Bhandari, he stored all liquor in the vehicle as well as the house of the security guard, which was in constructive possession of Shailesh Bhandari. Along with relevant documents of Electrotherm (India) Ltd., offence was committed as liquor were being transported to some other place for hiding and since Shailesh Bhandari was not successful and the officers of the GST have apprehended the vehicle from the Company’s premises and from the vehicle, the record pertaining to the Company’s transaction related to GST were seized along with liquor of Rs.33,44,81,000/- which shows that Shailesh Bhandari who is respondent no.1 was in exclusive possession of the liquor and thus, it is stated that respondent no.1 was about to hide the documents and the liquor, but was caught and the offence was registered and thereafter, the respondent no.1 has not even appeared before the GST officers and has absconded and yet another FIR is registered under the Arms Act with Santej Police Station being FIR no. 11216025210049, wherein live cartridges were found from the drawer of the office. It has been stated by the applicant, that respondent no.1 is his real younger brother, and he is the founder of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 on 31.3.1994 and the said Company is a public listed Company listed at Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange having 6500 shareholders. The applicant states that he was Chairman and Managing Director and at present he is the Director and he was looking after the technical affairs and product development in the Company, while respondent no.1 was looking after the financial matters and the management of the Company. 14. The applicant states that he was Chairman and Managing Director and at present he is the Director and he was looking after the technical affairs and product development in the Company, while respondent no.1 was looking after the financial matters and the management of the Company. 14. It is stated that by the applicant that in view of registration of 3 FIRs and the vehicle of the Company was involved and the liquor was found from the Company’s premises and the house of the security guard and the house of the respondent no.1 and it has been widely published in various newspapers and even the applicant has also received calls about the same from his friends and clients and therefore, the reputation of the said Company is tarnished and as the applicant herein being the founder Chairman and the original accused in the capacity of Managing Director is involved in the alleged offence and the same has also been widely published in the newspaper, in view of the same, the reputation of the Company is damaged and therefore, ultimately the applicant who is a Director is vitally affected by the offence being registered against the original accused and therefore, the applicant, being victim, be permitted to be joined as necessary party. 15. Advocate Mr. Goswami for applicant – Mukesh Bhandari relying upon the judgment in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376 submits that when the applicant is before this Court as a victim and urges for participation in the criminal proceedings, an opportunity is to be accorded for fair and effective hearing. Mr. Goswami submits that the victim cannot be expected to sit on the fence and watch the proceedings, especially, when the applicant has legitimate grievance. 16. Countering the same, Senior Advocate Mr. B.B. Naik has referred to the judgment in the case of Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 623 and has submitted that there is no such vested right in the complainant or informant or aggrieved parties to directly conduct the prosecution. He submits that constant and frequent interference in the prosecution should not be encouraged as it will have a deleterious impact on its impartiality. Mr. He submits that constant and frequent interference in the prosecution should not be encouraged as it will have a deleterious impact on its impartiality. Mr. Naik thus states that the Hon'ble Apex Court in referred judgment had come to the opinion that the complainant or informant or aggrieved party does not possess any vested right of being heard. 17. Mr. Goswami has referred to the definition of “victim” as defined under Section 2(wa) to contend that the applicant being the Director of the Company has suffered loss and injury to his reputation and that itself would be a reason for him to be made a party respondent in all the matters in connection with the FIRs. 18. The judgment which has been referred by learned advocate Mr. Goswami is in context with the FIR which has been registered for an event organized by the farmers in some wrestling competition organized by the accused and the program was attended by the Deputy Chief Minister of the State of UP and one another FIR was registered against some unknown person on protesting farmers for having killed 4 persons including a journalist, driver and two other supporters, appeal was filed in the Hon'ble Apex Court expressing serious concern regarding the fairness of the investigation into the incident, SIT was reconstituted and new members were inducted to carry out the investigation. In that context, the expression “victim” as considered in the judgment of Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnatak & Ors., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 752 was also considered while dealing with the question regarding the victim’s right to file an appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh (supra) has made observations in Paragraph 25, which read as under:- “25. The above stated enunciations are not to be conflated with certain statutory provisions, such as those present in Special Acts like the Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that; First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged; Second, where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a court to deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses.” 19. The present cases are for anticipatory bail, where consideration for the Court would be following factors, which had been incorporated under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. :- “(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail:” 20. The provisions for anticipatory bail found the place in the Cr.P.C. in the 41st report of Law Commission of India dated September 24, 1969 which pointed out the necessity of introducing the provision in the Cr.P.C. enabling the High Court and Court of Sessions to grant anticipatory bail. As noted in the judgment of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed of Paragraph 39.9 of the report (Volume 1) which is as under:- “The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days.” 21. The report of the Law Commission of India justifies the necessity of granting anticipatory bail observing that sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false case for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes of getting them detained in jail for some days. The report suggested that this tendency showing sign of steadily increase, apart from false cases, certain other considerations were also reflected in the report for the introduction of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 22. The report suggested that this tendency showing sign of steadily increase, apart from false cases, certain other considerations were also reflected in the report for the introduction of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 22. Learned advocate Mr. Goswami has failed to explain as to how the applicant would have suffered loss or injury because of registration of the FIRs against his own brother under the Prohibition Act. As stated, there are 3 more Directors of this Company and about 10,000 shareholders of the Company with 6,000 employees but none as aggrieved have come forward alleging that such FIR has caused any disrepute to the Company or has individually tarnished their image. 23. After registration of the FIR on 4.2.2021, the present applicant had addressed an email to the Company Secretary of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. with the subject for additional agenda of meeting no. 04/2020-21 of the Board of Directors to be held on 11.2.2021 and he had requested to remove Shailesh Bhandari from the post of Managing Director of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. with immediate effect and the letter was addressed in the capacity of being the founder and Director of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. The said fact itself shows that the applicant is an interested party who has agenda to remove his own brother from the post of Managing Director. The prayer for making him as party respondent is not with any bonafide intention of pursuing the case as intended to be for a victim who could be in a position to assert his right to participate in the proceedings. The intention as an applicant projecting him as a victim is not for assisting the prosecution or the Court for any case of his legitimate right. The prosecution is under the Prohibition Act where the police as a complainant has filed the FIR. The applicant has failed to show that as to how he being Director of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. suffered any loss or injury because of any FIR against the Managing Director of the Company. This Court does not consider his presence necessary as party respondent, while learned advocate Mr. Goswami has been permitted opportunity by this Court to make his submissions during the course of argument in relation with all the anticipatory bail applications. This Court does not find any reason to make the applicant; party respondent. Hence, the Applications for impleading the applicant as party respondent stand rejected. Goswami has been permitted opportunity by this Court to make his submissions during the course of argument in relation with all the anticipatory bail applications. This Court does not find any reason to make the applicant; party respondent. Hence, the Applications for impleading the applicant as party respondent stand rejected. 24. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned APP for the respondent – State submits that the present applicants as accused in all the 3 matters are directly connected in the offence and submits that during the course of investigation, according to the prosecution, relevant statements were recorded and the statements of the witnesses reflect that prohibited liquor was found in Eicher vehicle and the Guest House which was under the instructions of the applicant – Shailesh Bhandari. 25. Learned APP submits that Electrotherm (India) Ltd. is located at Palodiya Village, Santej and is having branches at Samkhiyali, Kutch and Karjan, Vadodara and the Company is engaged in manufacturing the machines of inductive furnish, continuous casting machine and pollution control system. It has (i) steel plant at Samkhiyali, Kutch, (ii) E & T Engineering and Technology, (iii) Yo Bike, (iv) TLT Transmission Line Tower, Karjan, Vadodara, (v) Transformer, etc. and Marketing Managers of about 22 departments of 64 countries have been often visiting and as per the statements of the witnesses, during the visit, foreign liquors have been brought in the premises under the instructions of Shailesh Bhandari and Suraj Bhandari and it is also stated that both the persons would often visit foreign country and there are all possibility that these liquor would have been brought by them. 26. Learned APP submits that it was found from the statement of employee – Jashvant Panchal, that on 18.1.2021, there would be a raid in the Company and therefore, under the instructions of the head of HR department, Sanjay Joshi, all the important files/data of the Company were loaded in trailer no. GJ-18 AZ-1929 by the cooking staff and were transferred on 14.1.2021 at the unit at Samkhiyali of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. Learned APP submits that from the office of Shailesh Bhandari and from other places, prohibited liquor was gathered with ET marks on the boxes and were separated and were packed in the suit case bags and the files were packed, which were transferred to personal Guest House bungalow no.8, Vrajgopi Bungalows Part-I, Village Palodiya. He further submits that from that bungalow, ET mark boxes, suitcase bags, files and jewelry bags on 16.1.2021 were taken in Eicher vehicle no. GJ-18 AU-9593 and were taken into parking area of IHS department. Learned APP further submits that as per the statements of the witnesses, the suitcases which were kept at Electrotherm (India) Ltd. unit were found to be broken and thus, Sanjay Joshi had informed Amit Shukla, the employee of HR department to get the liquor of the broken box to be packed and the suitcases were again called back in the Company which was brought by Bibhuti on instructions of Sanjay Joshi. Learned APP submits that during the course of Panchanama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Panchnama was drawn in presence of accused Bibhuti on 20.3.2021. It is submitted that Eicher vehicle no. GJ-18 AU-9593 which was found to be defective in a broken condition was brought in an open area at Gurjar hotel by driver Bhavesh Chaudhari under the instructions of Sanjay Joshi and driver Bhavesh Chaudhari had given key to accused Raju @ Samuel who had parked the said vehicle near said H.N. Vidhyalay besides Namkin godown and at that time, the accused Sanjay Joshi and Manish Patel were present at the said H.N. Vidhyalay. Learned APP further states that Raju @ Samuel and other labour staff had unloaded the boxes which were in Eicher vehicle no.GJ-18 AU-9593 and thereafter, the vehicle was taken for service, at the garage of Mohammadbhai at Sarkhej. Learned APP submits that Eicher vehicle was brought by the driver Pappuram Gurjar after his trip from 22.1.2021 to 28.1.2021 from his Palodiya unit to Samkhiyali and by getting 44 liters diesel filled in from a diesel pump through driver Jayesh Patel, the boxes were loaded in the Eicher vehicle near the said H.N. Vidhyalay. Learned APP submits that Eicher vehicle was parked in the school compound for about 3 days. Learned APP submits that the whole act was of bringing the contraband liquor in the Eicher vehicle in the Company premises at the godown was under assumption that GST raid was concluded on 2.2.2021 and therefore, under the instructions of Sanjay Joshi and Shailesh Bhandari through Manish Parmar and Samuel, Eicher vehicle was brought at the wooden parking area of Electrotherm (India) Ltd. 27. Learned APP states that the officer has given details of the purchases made of liquor towards the permit and thus, states that the articles which were found were not within the permissible limits. There are antecedents against the applicants and thus, learned APP states that keeping in view the provision under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. if the applicants are found with the antecedents criminal in nature, then no discretion is required to be exercised. 28. After perusing the documents and after having heard all the parties, the wooden parking area where this Eicher vehicle no. GJ-18 U-8593 was stated to be parked is of the ownership of Saloni Gandhi and Achal Gandhi. This area is under the lease agreement which was for 3 years at the monthly rent of Rs.66,000/- and the agreement was drawn in the name of the accused Sanjay Joshi on 17.5.2018 with the term period starting from 1.4.2018. On 3.2.2021, GST officer was undertaking this proceeding of search and during that period, it was found that in the wooden parking area, Eicher vehicle had 50 boxes with Electrotherm marks and suitcase bags wherein the prohibited articles were packed. Though the police had filed the FIR under the information of the GST officer, no statement of any of the GST officer has been recorded by the police. It is further to be noted that all the prohibited articles which were in boxes were carried back to the Police Station of the FIRs. Panchnama was not conducted at the place of offence in all the three FIRs. The officers of GST department were available on the spot but they were not shown as Panchas in the Panchnama. No Panchas from the nearby area were called for recording the proceedings. All the contraband articles were opened in the Police Station. The police has through the statement of witnesses tried to project that Eicher vehicle was brought in the premises in the parking area, under the instructions of Shailesh Bhandari. It is required to be noted that GST raid and search had started from 16.1.2021 and the alleged contraband was found in Eicher vehicle on 3.2.2021. The suitcase bags contained the prohibited articles were along with the boxes with the mark of Electrotherm (India) Ltd., which contain files. The police has not noted any fact regarding the files which were in Eicher vehicle. The suitcase bags contained the prohibited articles were along with the boxes with the mark of Electrotherm (India) Ltd., which contain files. The police has not noted any fact regarding the files which were in Eicher vehicle. The vehicle in which prohibited articles were found is GJ-18 AU- 8593 is not seized vehicle of the present matter, while Eicher vehicle no. GJ-18 AU- 9593 which was stated to have been parked at Shantivan Farm is seized in the matter. While 64 liquor bottles were found in the guest house and 36 bottles where the security guard was temporarily staying, who was holding liquor permit. 29. The applicants are Managing Director, full time Director, HR head and security head of the Company. The internal dispute of brothers as Directors of the Company appears to have drawn, to registration of the FIR, where GST officers had instructed the police of having found the contraband liquor, while the alleged liquor articles were not examined at the place of incident. The criminal cases which are registered against the applicants shown as antecedent are the proceedings initiated by CBI against both the brothers and family members who are the accused, which are in relation to the transaction with the Bank. 30. The FIR suggests that all the alleged articles were taken at the Police Station where it is stated that in presence of Panchas, the contraband country liquor and foreign liquor as stated in the FIRs were noted. Section 438 in the provision itself states that when accusation has been made with an object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, then discretion is required to be exercised to grant anticipatory bail. The whole of the facts of the case suggests that the very intention of the prosecution under direct or indirect influence of Mukesh Bhandari has made an attempt to get all the applicants arrested by the police. This Court thus finds the case for exercising the discretion in granting anticipatory bail. 31. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 565 . This Court has also taken into consideration the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 . 32. In the result, the present applications are allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with FIRs no. 11216025210042/2021, 11216025210044/2021 and 11216025210045/2021 registered with Santej Police Station, Gandhinagar on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that they: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (c) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (d) 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 till further orders; (e) shall not leave India without the permission of the concerned trial court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the concerned trial court within a week; and 33. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate for police remand of the applicants. The applicants 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. The applicants 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 applicants, 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. 34. At the trial, the concerned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The applications for fixing early date of hearing also stand disposed of. Direct service is permitted. Registry to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority by Fax or Email forthwith.