Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 92 (GUJ)

Laljibhai Baubhai Dhola v. State of Gujarat

2025-02-10

HASMUKH D.SUTHAR

body2025
ORDER : 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. 2. The present successive application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11204046240569 of 2024 registered with Nadiad Town Police Station, Kheda for the offences under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 111(1) (3) of BNS Act. 3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the present application is the successive bail application, filed after submission of the charge-sheet and the investigation is already completed. He further submits that earlier bail application was preferred before filing of charge-sheet and therefore, the same waswithdrawn. He further submits that the FIR is filed against total 07 accused persons, wherein, the present applicant-accused is shown as accused no.1. He further submits that the incident occurred for the period between 20.05.2022 and 27.07.2024 and the FIR is registered on 27.07.2024. He further submits that alleged phone call was received to the complainant three years back and the date of commission of offence was three years back. He further submits that the accused persons hatched the conspiracy, wherein, it is alleged that the complainant and accused no.5 and his friend Mansurkhan Pathan and one Jecki Rame met at Nadiad and all three persons told that Laljibhai Dhola and Nitinbhai Italiya are the trustees of trust and they intend to purchase 550-600 bigha land in Kheda District. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith three persons went to the land situated at Lasundra and told that the said land is of ownership of Jecki Rami. He further submits that as a part of criminal conspiracy, the MOU was executed by Rami Jackikumar for the consideration of Rs.3.75 Crore and the complainant had paid Rs.3 crore to the Jecki Rami. He further submits that the present applicant neither a seller nor purchaser of the property. Even the present applicant had not signed in any MOU or received any amount from the complainant. He further submits that one compromise deed has been executed between the complainant and present applicant and the present applicant had paid Rs.53 lac and R.1.12 crore to the complainant for settlement. He further submits that remaining amount of Rs.2.63 crore is not returned to the complainant thought repeatedly demanded by the complainant. He further submits that one compromise deed has been executed between the complainant and present applicant and the present applicant had paid Rs.53 lac and R.1.12 crore to the complainant for settlement. He further submits that remaining amount of Rs.2.63 crore is not returned to the complainant thought repeatedly demanded by the complainant. He further submits that though one Jecki Rami and J.P. Swami had executed the MOU with the complainant, and they have played the key role in the alleged transaction, but they are not arraigned as accused. He further submits that the chargesheet is filed and nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. Based on thesuspicion, the applicant is arrested. The applicant is having two past antecedent. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. 4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail on the ground that the accused persons have hatched the conspiracy and cheated the complainant. Learned APP has submitted that considering the role attributed to the applicant-accused, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused. 5. While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered: (1) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed; (2) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty and are triable by the Court of JMFC; (3) That the applicant-accused is in jail since 13.09.2024; (4) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant; (5) The applicant has two past antecedent. (6) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take some time. (7) A compromise deed has been executed between the complainant and present applicant and the present applicant had paid Rs.53 lac to the complainant as a part of settlement. 7. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240 . Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration. 8. 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 andenlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. 8. 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 andenlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11204046240569 of 2024 registered with Nadiad Town Police Station, Kheda on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five 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 & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week; (d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned; (e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in every month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (f) furnish the present address of his 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 Trial Court; (g) not to enter District Kheda for a period of six months except for marking presence before the concerned police station and/or for attending Court; (h) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.