ASHVINBHAI CHUNTHABHAI RABARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vishal Mehta on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli on behalf of the first informant.

(2.) By way of this application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 11211005220103 of 2022 registered with Patdi Police Station, District: Surendranangar on 20/5/2022 for offences punishable under Ss. 406 , 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta on behalf of the applicant would submit that while the allegations levelled in the FIR being that the first informant was seller of the property in question, did not get the amount as decided between the seller and the purchaser and it is also alleged that substantial amount had been siphoned off, and whereas according to learned Advocate Mr. Mehta as can be made out from the FIR, the amount had not been siphoned off by the present applicant rather the amount had been siphoned off by accused no. 3 who was stated to be the broker of the first informant. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta would also submit that as can be made out from the FIR, the applicant had come with the money in question and whereas since the money had been taken away by accused no. 3 or accused no.6 as the case may be, the allegations that the applicant had misappropriated the amount, may not stand. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta would further submit that as a matter of fact, the first informant and the purchasers of the property being accused no. 1 and 2, having settled the matter inter se and whereas the registered sale-deed in question having been cancelled by the parties, on basis of the settlement, and the transaction now having been reversed, there would be no fruitful purpose, if the present applicant is required to undergo custodial interrogation. Having regard to such submission learned Advocate would submit that this Court may grant indulgence to the present applicant by releasing him on anticipatory bail.