SANAM NILESHBHAI SHAH 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 406 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code for which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.I -175 of 2019 with Mahidharpura Police Station, Surat.

(3.) On consideration of the rival submissions, it is clear that the complainant in this case is not the victim who is stationed in Israel but a clerk of an advocate who is stated to have been authorized by the victim to lodge the complaint. Apart from the fact as to whether such a complaint where the transactions involved is virtually of a private nature can be maintained, this Court has also noticed that except few statements of the witnesses who prima facie do not have personal knowledge of the forged documents sought to be relied upon and there does not appear any attempt by the prosecution to investigate the case in conformity with Sec. 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code which contemplates compliance of certain parameters before the electronic record can be admitted in evidence. The witnesses who are cited are the learned advocate concerned his clerk and some auto rickshaw drivers. The documents sought to be relied upon are the Panchnama whereunder the petitioner allegedly used the password to open his Mail ID and then copy of the alleged forged documents was drawn. It is also clear from the Panchmama itself that the document was not communicated by the petitioner, but one Mr.Hetal Shah. The petitioner is sought to be tried with halfhearted material. He has been behind the bars since the last week of December, 2019. The case is based upon documentary evidence which is already collected; and is triable by the Magistrate. Thus, the case for admitting the petitioner to bail is made out.