AMITKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI DHAKAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Kishan H. Daiya, learned advocate for the applicant, Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State and Mr.Dhruv Dave, learned advocate for the original complainant through Video Conferencing.

(2.) The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.I - 200/2019 registered with Mahidharpura Police Station, District: Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 409 , 420 , 465 , 468 , 471 , 473 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been interrogated by the police and after interrogation, the charge-sheet has been filed against him. While referring the the complaint, he has submitted that the transactions are not made through the present applicant and other agents were also involved in the alleged offence. He has submitted that the applicant is an agent and has taken part only in 3 to 4 transactions wherein payment has been made by the concerned person. He has submitted that this is a business transaction and, therefore, considering the materials on record, especially, the fact that other co-accused have been released either on regular bail or on anticipatory bail on the same set of facts and circumstances, the present applicant may also be released on bail. He has submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the stringent conditions that may be imposed by the Court. He has also submitted that the applicant has moved an application for anticipatory bail before the concerned Sessions Court, which came to be rejected and, thereafter, since he has not arrested, warrant under Section 70 of the Criminal Procedure Code came to be issued. However, all the materials are collected by the prosecution, the charge-sheet has been led against him. He has submitted that the fact, regarding the co-accused are absconded, cannot be taken into consideration for denying the bail to applicant. He has further submitted that considering the nature of evidence, role attributed to the applicant and punishment prescribed, this application for bail may kindly be considered and the applicant may be released on bail on stringent conditions.