RAJKUMAR SUGNOMAL MAHERCHANDANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing.

(2.) This application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with FIR registered as I-C.R.No.12 of 2018 with Mansa Police Station, District Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, ( IPC ).

(3.) Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the allegations made against the applicant are vague and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He has submitted that in fact the applicant is not concerned with the construction at Amrapara Village Mahudi. Reliance is placed on the consumer complaint filed by one Shri Mukesh Dodiya before the Consumer Forum, wherein he is not made a party, whereas other partners are made as party respondents. He has further submitted that Shri Kishor Narandas Maherchandani, who is one of the partners at Adalaj scheme, has been released by the Trial Court on regular bail. Further reliance is placed by him on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide dated 27.05.2020 in Criminal Misc. Application No.7217 of 2020 in case of the applicant, for the identical offence connected with Adalaj area, wherein he has been released on depositing an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. He has submitted that in fact this Court has imposed such condition of depositing Rs.3,00,000/- since the applicant is one of the partners at Adalaj scheme, whereas in the present case he is not the partner in the scheme floated at Village Amrapur, Mahudi. Thus, in the present case, the applicant cannot be asked to deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. He has submitted that applicant has been arrested on 17.03.2020 and has been incarcerated since then and, therefore, he has urged that the present application may be allowed and the applicant may be granted bail.