DILJITSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP waives service. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent-State.

(2.) This application is filed seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 394 , 506(2) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.11215012200030 of 2020 with Khambhat City Police Station, Anand.

(3.) On consideration of rival submissions, as also considering the contents of the FIR, it appears that the complainant is a goldsmith and also a moneylender. He used to lend money on the pledge of the ornaments. Prior to the incident in question, admittedly, several transactions were entered into between the applicant and the complainant and during the last such transaction, it is the case of the complainant he had lent Rs.2,40,000 to the accused upon the pledge of ornaments. It is under the above said circumstance that the offence is alleged against the petitioner. According to the complainant, four months prior to the date of the FIR, accused had come for unpledging his ornaments, the account was verified by the complainant and on being satisfied, he went into his house for fetching the pledged material and it is at that stage, that the accused allegedly overpowered him, tied him and looted the ornaments and threatened the complainant. According to the complainant, he maintained silence for four months except the revelation to his wife, who was not present when the incident took place. According to him he was under threat and fear and could muster the courage of registering the FIR upon learning the arrest of the petitioner as published in the news-paper. Although the complainant is silent about the date or duration of the news-paper publication, the learned APP states that one more case has been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 364A of the IPC and in that case the accused is admitted to bail. Considering the preexisting relation between the complainant and the accused, prima facie it is doubtful as to whether the accused had come with the intention to loot or something went wrong at the time of seeking unpledging of the ornaments from the complainant. To this Court, prima facie, this case does not appear to be a case of 'intentional loot'. The ornaments worth 700 Grams have been recovered and cash of Rs.3,07,000/- is also discovered at the instance of the petitioner; investigation is completed; charge- sheet is filed and thus having regard to the overall circumstances of the case, in absence of any other serious incident of similar nature against the petitioner and in absence of other serious apprehension against the petitioner tampering with the evidence or threating the witnesses or fleeing from trial, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.