PRASANNKUMAR KANAIYALAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar for the Applicant and learned APP Mr. H.K. Patel for the Respondent State through video conference.

(2.) By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being I - 1 9 9 / 2 0 1 9 registered with Western Railway Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for the offenses punishable under Sections 463, 465, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that in the present case before availing brief from the concerned person, in fact, it was handed over to the NGO and the same NGO has handed over the same to the present applicant therefore, there is no such role attributed to the present applicant. Of course the Tribunal has observed that the the Applicant has committed forgery. Learned Advocate further submitted that present applicant is a practicing advocate and further there are some documents, wherein earlier notice was given by the NGO regarding availing of compensation and therefore there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. He further submitted that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation and trial also, and will not flee from justice, therefore, the discretion may kindly be exercised in favour of the applicant and application may kindly be allowed.