KANUBHAI KHIMJIBHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present successive bail application is preferred by the petitioner to release him on bail in exercise of sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Shri Ashutosh Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made only one submission that as the applicant is in jail since more than two and half years, he may be released on bail in exercise of sub-section (6) of Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code. As such no other submissions have been made by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner as earlier on 13 occasions either the learned trial Court and/or the learned Sessions Court and/or this Court have rejected the bail applications.

(2.) Shri J.K. Shah, learned APP appearing on behalf of State and Shri Nitin Amin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant while opposing the present application has submitted that this is the 13th application submitted by the petitioner for releasing him on bail. It is submitted that even earlier the very petitioner submitted the application under sub-section (6) of Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code in the month of March 2010 itself and the same came to be dismissed by this Court. It is submitted that as such the trial has already begun and the complainant is already examined and only the panchas and the investigating officer and if required, the handwriting expert are to be examined. It is submitted that at the most a direction can be issued directing the learned trial Court to decide and dispose of the trial at the earliest.

(3.) Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, at the outset it is required to be noted that petitioner is facing charge for offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has misappropriated a huge amount of Rs.44,82,000/-. It is to be noted that earlier on number of occasions, the very petitioner had filed number of applications to release him on bail either before the Metropolitan Court and/or before the Sessions Court and/or before this Court and all the applications (13 in number) came to be rejected. Thus, this is the successive bail application without any changed circumstances. It is also required to be noted that recently in the month of March 2010, the very petitioner submitted an application before this Court with a prayer to release him on bail in exercise of sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came to be rejected. There are no changed circumstances. Even otherwise, considering the fact that the trial has already begun and as the evidence of the complainant, who is the main witness, is also begun and is likely to be over by tomorrow and now only panchas and investigating officer and if required, handwriting expert are to be examined, a suitable direction can be issued to the learned trial Court to decide and dispose of the trial at the earliest within stipulated time.