NARENDRA NAVINBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocates for the Applicants appearing in the respective Criminal Miscellaneous Applications, learned Advocate Mr. Bhargav Bhatt for learned Advocate Mr. Ankur Y. Oza for the Respondent - Original Complainant, and learned APP Ms. Moxa Thafor the Respondent - State of Gujarat in all the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications, arising out of the same FIR.

(2.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants - accused have prayed for enlarging them on anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR N o . 11191036210425 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offenses punishable under Ss. 406 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned Advocates for the Applicants have submitted that the Applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection the aforesaid FIR and in this connection the earlier application filed by the Applicants before the learned Sessions Court came to be dis-allowed. Learned Advocates for the Applicants have submitted that looking to the contents of the FIR, the story put forward by the first informant is inherently unbelievable and improbable. The learned Advocates for the Applicants have submitted that this is a civil litigation and just to pressurize the Applicants the present FIR is lodged. The learned Advocates for the Applicants have further submitted that the payments are made after due verification of bills but the same was without taking any precautions the complainant entered with the financial transactions with the other accused person. The learned Advocates for the Applicants have submitted that the Applicants have received the bill amount against the delivery of materials to the accused nos. 1 and 2 except that the Applicants did not gain any financial gain with regard to the averments made in the FIR. Learned Advocates for the Applicants have submitted that the Applicants have the family and have high reputation in the society and as such there are no criminal antecedents against the Applicants and the Applicants have been wrongly arraigned as accused. The learned Advocates for the Applicants have submitted that the case is based on documentary evidence and therefore no custodial interrogation is required. It is further submitted that no ingredients whatsoever necessary to make out the alleged offences are found. Learned Advocates for the Applicants have therefore submitted that considering the entire facts narrated in the complaint, no prima facie case against the Applicants is made out and therefore discretion may be kindly be exercised and Criminal Miscellaneous Applications may be granted.