KAUSHA NIKUNJ MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties by video conferencing.

(2.) By way of the present application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-11210060211136 of 2021 registered with Varachha Police Station, Surat City, District Surat for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 472 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that the families of the first informant and accused have good relation, as they were residing in same society. It is alleged in the FIR that the father of the applicant persuaded the first informant to invest and save money in the Postal Department, as his daughter - Kausha Mehta (the present applicant), was running an agency of the Postal Department for investment and his son Hemant - brother of the present applicant was working as her agent in the said agency. It is alleged that therefore, the first informant and his family members opened total 51 saving recurring accounts for the period of five years in the Postal Department, through father of the applicant. It is stated that the first informant and his family were paying regular installments to be deposited in the recurring post account to the father the present applicant. It is further alleged that in the year 2016-17, father of the applicant passed away. It is stated that the brother and sister-in-Law of the applicant continued, as her agents, for collecting the amount to be deposited in Post Account from the first informant and his family. It is alleged that the time limit of the money depositing in the Post Account was to end in the year 2019 and the first informant contacted brother of the applicant and told him to pay back the amount of the matured deposits in the recurring accounts, the money which was paid earlier to him, but the brother of the applicant, under different pretexts, did not pay the amount and whiling away the time and did not arrange to give the said amount. It is alleged that thereafter, the first informant and his wife went to the concerned Post Office to get the cheque of the matured deposits and where the first informant came to know that the agency of the applicant, through which they opened the recurring accounts, was revoked in the year 2019 and no money in the year 2018 was deposited in the said recurring accounts. It is also allegted that the first informant made an inquiry to the brother of the applicant and he persisted with his arguments that he deposited money of the first informant in the said post account. It is alleged that when the first informant asked the brother of the applicant to accompany him to the post office, the brother of the applicant avoided accompanying the first informant to the post office.