MOBATKHAN VISAJI MALEK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Report of Mr. D.J.Jhala, Police sub Inspector, Patadi Police Station addressed to learned APP which is taken on record.

(2.) The present successive bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.11211005210030 of 2021 registered with Patdi Police Station District: Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B) of the IPC

(3.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the alleged incident was occurred on 3.7.2019 and complaint was filed on 11.2.2021, i.e. after period of 1 years and 7 months delay and this delay is not explained by the complainant in her complaint. That, the applicant is neither owner of the Ami Swaraj tractor showroom nor employee of the Ami swaraj tractor showroom. That, for obtaining vehicle loan, procedure was prescribed that first owner of the vehicle paid down payment to the Ami Swaraj tractor showroom and handover the necessary documents and concerned office of the bank verifying the documents and after that loan has been sanctioned by the Bank and loan amount is directly deposit into the account of the showroom agency and therefore the present applicant is witness in the present case. That, as per the allegations leveled in the complaint triable by the learned JMFC, applicant is not directly connected with alleged offence. That, the other-accused namely Natvarbhai @Natubhai H.Gambha has been released on bail vide order dated 28.6.2021, Therefore, on the ground of parity, the judicial discretion can also be used in favour of the present applicant and he may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.