UMANG JATINBHAI GANDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR, being C.R. No.11210025202440 of 2020 registered with Limbayat Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned senior advocate Mr.Yogesh Lakhani appearing with learned advocate Mr. Nandish H. Chackar for the applicant has contended that this is a third attempt which has been made to somehow arraign the applicant in commission of the crime and further, the report which was submitted dated 6.9.2017 has also not7 been challenged so far by the complainant and accepting that report in its as it is form, no offence is made out. Mr. Lakhani has further contended that the applicant is a permanent resident of Surat and specific averment has been made in para (d) on oath, which reads as under:-

(3.) As against the aforesaid submission, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot appearing on behalf of the original complainant has vehemently made an attempt to oppose this application and has submitted that sizable amount has already been recovered from the original complainant by this very applicant and the same is very much reflecting on the documents which are part of the record from page 39-D and after drawing attention, it has been contended that there is a systematic modus operandi executed against the complainant by the present applicant. It has further been submitted that learned Trial Judge has examined this entry made in the diary and has clearly opined that in such huge transaction, this entry cannot be assumed to be of Rs.4,000/- only and as such, it is evident from the record that huge amount is already collected by the present applicant. However, Mr. Barot has candidly and fairly submitted that a petition for quashing the complaint is very much filed by some of the co-accused persons, in which protection is granted of taking no coercive step and the said quashing petition is yet pending. Further, Mr. Barot has submitted that the report dated 6.9.2017 has not been challenged nor carried further by the complainant and as such, by this submission, Mr. Barot has submitted that there are several persons who are demanding money from this applicant. It has been submitted that if this applicant is granted anticipatory bail, then there is likelihood of tampering and interfering in the investigation since the father of the applicant is an influential person. Hence, a request is made not to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.