JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11197005240107 of 2024 registered with the Vadodara Taluka Police Station, Vadodara Rural of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned senior counsel Mr. Devang Nanavati assisted by learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 01.02.2024 and is in jail ever since. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has also submitted that the investigation is underway and the present application is at pre-indictment stage. It is further submitted that the first information report was registered against total four accused persons placing the present applicant-accused as accused No.1. According to the complaint, the alleged incident took place during the period between 09.11.2020 and 15.03.2022 for which the first information report came to be registered on 31.01.2024, i.e after a delay of almost two years. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati further submits that, in fact, the complainant and the applicant-accused are the partners of the firm, namely, Shreeji Inc. and the present complaint is a clear cut offshoot of the wrecked relationship of the partners due to some financial disputes. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has also submitted that a partnership deed was executed between total seven partners on 19.12.2019 scattering into two groups consisting of four persons and three persons respectively. According to the complaint, the applicant-accused has illegally withdrawn an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- through two different transactions without the knowledge of the complainant and other partners. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has further submitted that to counter such allegation, the statement of the bank account of the applicant-accused has also been appended along with the memo of the application which shewed that the applicant-accused has in all invested Rs.78,57,940/- in terms of his 10% share in the partnership firm which is clearly mentioned in the partnership deed. It is moreso submitted that with the assent of all the partners, the present applicant-accused and the complainant had been appointed as the authorized signatories for conducting any kind of legal documentation work or else on behalf of the firm. It is moreso submitted that with the assent of all the partners, the present applicant-accused and the complainant had been appointed as the authorized signatories for conducting any kind of legal documentation work or else on behalf of the firm. In short, they are the authorized signatories legally appointed by the partners. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati submits that subsequently, with the assent of all the partners, one of the partners, namely, Subhashbhai Gordhanbhai Kanani had also been appointed as the authorized signatory a declaration whereof was issued on the letterhead of the company on 01.08.2020 containing signatures of all the partners and they are not having any slightest of doubt as regards the authenticity of the said documents. Even they have fairly and candidly admitted about the execution of the said document. 4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has further submitted that on 09.11.2020, a letter was addressed to the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India on the letterhead of the company purportedly signed by three of the partners requesting the Bank to add the name of Mr. Subhashkumar G. Kanani into the existing bank account of the firm. It is stated in the said letter that the names of two partners were already there as the signatories of the firm, and once the name of the third partner is added to the account, then kindly consider any two partners signature to clear the cheques submitted for clearance. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has also submitted that even the signature of the complainant is also there on the said document and now he is raising objections about the authenticity of the said document stating that he has never endorsed any such document and his signature on the said document is forged one. The grievance of the complainant is that based on such document, the name of the third partner has been illegally added as the authorized signatory and later certain amounts have been withdrawn from the account of the firm by the accused persons by using the signature of subsequently added signatory and thereby conned the complainant. Learned senior counsel Mr. The grievance of the complainant is that based on such document, the name of the third partner has been illegally added as the authorized signatory and later certain amounts have been withdrawn from the account of the firm by the accused persons by using the signature of subsequently added signatory and thereby conned the complainant. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has further submitted that if the intention of the accused persons was to get undue advantage and benefit by adding the name of the third partner as the authorized signatory, then they would have withdrawn the entire amount lying in the account of the partnership firm. The total investment made by the applicant-accused is Rs.78,57,940/- which is ten times higher than the amount alleged to have been siphoned away by the applicant-accused. Not only that, the applicant-accused withdrew the alleged amount on 09.08.2021, however, thereafter, he has made number of transactions and deposited more amount than that of alleged to have been withdrawn by the applicant-accused. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause-14 of the partnership deed wherein it is clearly stated that any partner can withdraw such amount as mutually agreed upon by the partners from the account of the firm for its personal use and expenses which shall be repaid to the firm with 12% interest per annum or at some other rate. It is moreso submitted that the bank statement of the complainant is also appended along with the memo of the application which indicates that on 24.03.2021, an amount of Rs.19,12,047/- was withdrawn by the complainant from the firm’s account. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati submits that the present FIR is a result of some financial row between the partners and all the offences alleged in the FIR are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate. The applicant-accused is a businessman who invested a huge amount in the business firm with the hope to get lucrative profit having untainted and unblemished career. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati fairly and candidly submitted that there was one mistake committed by the applicant-accused at the time of preferring the bail application before the trial court that the applicant-accused was convicted by the trial court in one offence and the said order was also affirmed by the first appellate court. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati fairly and candidly submitted that there was one mistake committed by the applicant-accused at the time of preferring the bail application before the trial court that the applicant-accused was convicted by the trial court in one offence and the said order was also affirmed by the first appellate court. Both these orders were then challenged before this court by way of filing revision application which was allowed by this Court and the sentence imposed upon the applicant-accused has been suspended. Learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati has submitted that the said fact is required to be brought before the trial court at the time of preferring bail application, however, for the reason best known to the learned advocate before the trial court, he forgot to disclose the said fact before the trial court. 5. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned senior counsel Mr. Nanavati prays that there being merit in his application, the same be allowed and the applicant-accused be released on bail. 6. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Dhawan Jayswal appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the specific role of the applicant-accused is clearly spelt out from the entire police papers. Learned APP has further submitted that initially all went well with the partnership firm, however, later some disputes arose between the partners as regards some financial transactions made by the other partners behind the back of the complainant. The indictment is that the accused persons forged the signature of the complainant on the letterhead of the company which was then forwarded to the Bank for addition of the name of the third partner as the authorized signatory in the bank account of the firm without the knowledge of the complainant. According to the complainant, the signature upon the said document is not his signature and the same is forged one. According to the complainant, the signature upon the said document is not his signature and the same is forged one. Therefore, having come to know about such forgery, initially an application was given by the complainant to the concerned police station alleging forgery and acting upon such an application, before registration of the complaint, police sent the alleged document to the FSL for eliciting the handwriting expert’s opinion as regards the veracity of the signature, which after receiving the report from the FSL, found to be forged one and, therefore, the FIR came to be registered. 7. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned APP prays that there being no merit in the present application, the same be rejected. 8. Learned senior counsel Mr. Yogesh Lakhani assisted by learned advocate Mr. Jay Thakkar appearing for the original complainant has also vehemently opposed the instant bail application and submitted that the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has put much emphasis upon the document annexed along with the memo of the application at Page-92 which is a declaration by all the partners of the firm, declaring Mr. Subhashkumar Kanani to act as the authorized signatory on behalf of the firm which only authorizes Mr. Subhashkumar Kanani to do the activities relating to the goods and service tax and not the activities relating to bank operations. For the purpose of carrying out the bank operations, two partners have been appointed, i.e, the complainant and the applicant- accused which is very well mentioned in the partnership deed itself. Learned senior counsel Mr. Lakhani submits that the complainant to the best of his knowledge has never signed any document giving authority to deal with the affairs of the bank accounts. As per the partnership deed, there are only two authorized persons who can deal with the bank operations. It is moreso submitted that with an intention to conned the complainant and siphoned away the money from the account of the firm, a third party right has been created and utilized by forging the signature of the complainant. The specimen signature of the complainant has also been obtained by the police which was sent to the FSL for obtaining the handwriting expert’s opinion which has already been received, and as per the said report, the signature of the complainant on the said document is found to be forged one. Learned senior counsel Mr. The specimen signature of the complainant has also been obtained by the police which was sent to the FSL for obtaining the handwriting expert’s opinion which has already been received, and as per the said report, the signature of the complainant on the said document is found to be forged one. Learned senior counsel Mr. Lakhani has further submitted that so far as the counter allegation against the complainant of withdrawing amount of Rs.19,12,047/- from the account of the firm is concerned, the said amount was a refund to the excess amount deposited by the complainant in respect of one transaction relating to purchase of one property in the name of the firm as at the relevant point of time, there was no sufficient balance in the account of the firm. The said amount has been refunded by one of the partners and the authorized signatory Mr. Rahul Babubhai Malani himself through RTGS. Learned senior counsel Mr. Lakhani has further submitted that three other complaints of the same nature have also been filed against the applicant-accused by the partners of that respective firms where also by adopting the same modes operandi, the applicant-accused has siphoned away the money of the other firms. It is also submitted that the conduct, approach and behaviour of the applicant-accused is required to be seen and the Hon’ble Apex Court very recently in a reported judgment has observed that at the time of preferring an application, one has to come with a clean hands by narrating each and every facts involved in the matter. Here in the present case, the learned advocate for the applicant has suppressed the fact at the time of preferring bail application before the trial court that he has been convicted by the trial court in one offence which was also affirmed by the first appellate court. However, the said order of sentence came to be suspended in revision by this Court. In short, the applicant-accused has suprressed the mateial fact at the time of preferring the bail application before the trial court just with a view to get favourable order. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the investigation is at the crucial stage and, therefore, considering the likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence, discretion should not be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the investigation is at the crucial stage and, therefore, considering the likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence, discretion should not be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for respective parties and perused the materials available on record as well as considered the allegations levelled against the applicant- accused. The entire dispute in the case on hand revolves around withdrawal of certain amount from the account of the firm by some of the partners. According to the complainant, he along with other six partners established a firm in the name and style ass ‘Shreeji Inc.’ somewhere in the year 2019 and with the assent of all the partners, two partners, i.e, the complainant and the applicant-accused, were appointed as the authorized signatories on behalf the firm for managing the affairs of the Bank operations. However, the grievance of the complainant is that subsequently, keeping him in dark, one another partner, namely, Subhashkumar Kanani had also been added as the third authorized signatory on behalf of the firm by way of a declaration on the letterhead of the firm wherein the signature of the complainant has been forged and under the signature of the subsequently added signatory, without the knowledge of the complainant, a huge amount has been misappropriate by the accused persons. These are the highlights of the allegations levelled by the complainant against the applicant-accused. It is pertinent to note that the applicant-accused has thereafter deposited the excess amount than the amount alleged to have been withdrawn by the applicant-accused. It is also to be noted that there is a huge delay of four years in registering the complaint. All the offences are exclusively triable by the court of magistrate. The investigation is also at the verge of completion. Furthermore, the applicant-accused is languishing in jail since 01.02.2024. The entire dispute appears to be civil in nature. It is further to be noted that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon documentary evidences and almost all the documents have been seized by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and, therefore, there is no question of tampering or hampering with the prosecution witnesses. Thus, considering the above stated factual aspects, I am of the view that the matter requires consideration. 10. Thus, considering the above stated factual aspects, I am of the view that the matter requires consideration. 10. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012]1 SCC 40. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 12. Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11197005240107 of 2024 registered with the Vadodara Taluka Police Station, Vadodara, on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 injuries 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 Sessions Judge concerned; [e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday 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 this Court; 13. 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 take appropriate action in the matter. 14. 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. 15. 14. 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. 15. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.