PRATIKKUMAR MUKESHBHAI DUNGARANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-accused has filed this Criminal Misc. Application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, claiming relief in terms of Para 12(b) which reads as under:

(2.) Arguments for the applicant:- Mr. Rajesh B Soni, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the farmers have taken loan from the Krushi Talkal and it was paid in the account of Kisan Suvidha Card. That the applicant-accused has not played any role in getting the loan amount. That the application dated 07.02.2020 was given to the concerned investigating officer who has not verified the contents of the application. That Sureshbhai Kantilal Patel has not shown in the affidavit dated 22.09.2016 that the complaint was lodged after a period of five years. No amount is misappropriated by the applicant and the ingredients of the offence is also not satisfied. He has further submitted that during the course of investigation the applicant will not flee away from justice. That the nature of the allegations are such that custodial interrogation is not necessary at this stage. The learned advocate for the applicant requested to grant anticipatory bail on conditions as deemed fit by the Court.

(3.) Arguments for the prosecution:- Mr. H.K. Patel, learned APP for the respondent State submitted that the applicant accused was serving as Secretary in Tarasad Seva Sahkari Mandali at the relevant time and he has taken the signature of the farmers and applied for loan and he has taken loan on behalf of the farmers and used the money for his personal purpose. The appellant-accused has also filed notarized undertaking wherein he has confessed that the loan granted to the seven farmers are utilized by him for his personal purpose. That he has made signature of the farmers in the withdrawal form and the amount was taken away by him. It is further argued that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of those seven farmers under Section 161 of the CrPC wherein they have categorically stated that the applicant-accused has taken their signature in the guise of crop insurance and that they have not received any amount of loan. Learned APP has also stated that the applicant has confessed the same before the registry. It is also argued that the amount of Rs.15,89,757 /- are due in the accounts of farmer. Therefore, the amount of Rs.15,90,000/- are misappropriated by the present applicant- accused and there is no reason to believe the farmers at this stage that it is not he case to grant anticipatory bail. Looking to the allegations against the applicant-accused and the facts and circumstances of the case, he requested to dismiss the application.