VIRENDRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been preferred under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the first information report being I-C.R. No. 320 of 2019 registered with Puna Police Station, Surat, for the offences punishable under sections 406 , 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Mr. Sandeep R. Limbani, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that Letter of undertaking was executed on 28.12.2017 and the said fact has been reflected in the complaint dated 17.08.2019. He submitted that all the transactions were within the knowledge of the complainant, documents were executed before the Notary and the complainant had done so under legal advise. Mr. Sandeep further submitted that co- accused viz., Kishore Chhotulal Pande and Surendra Chhotulal Pande, were granted anticipatory bail, who are partners of the present applicant and therefore, case of the present applicant could be on a similar footing and principle of parity may apply in the present matter. Learned advocate Mr. Limbani contended that, if at all the complainant has any issue regarding conditions of the agreement and undertaking, the only recourse available to him is to file Suit in the Civil Court. Learned advocate also stated that the complaint is pressure tactics and if anticipatory bail is not granted, then applicant's civil rights would get jeopardized. It was submitted that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. It was, therefore, prayed that discretion may be granted in favour of the applicant.

(3.) Ms. Nisha Thakore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail, submitting that the applicant has to shown the fact on record, that after undertaking dated 28.12.2017, which has been mentioned in the FIR, whether any amount has been paid as per the agreement or not. Learned APP also submitted that the agreement was executed in personal capacity and therefore, case of other two accused is to be distinguished on that ground. It was, therefore, prayed that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant.