VIKRAMBHAI DHIRAJLAL KAKADIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. L. B. Dabhi, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State. Mr. Rajesh Kanani, learned advocate is permitted to file his vakalatnama for the original complainant-IOCL. He waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of original complainant.

(2.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as FIR No.11193008220370 of 2022 with Babra Police Station, Amreli for the offenses punishable under Ss. 403 , 406 , 409 , 420 , 341 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned advocate for the applicant states that present FIR is nothing but a patent abuse of process of law as the same does not disclose the alleged offence and the same is filed without appreciating the factual background involved in the case. He further states that arbitral proceedings initiated by INOX against IOCL are pending adjudication before the learned Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators has been constituted as per the agreement between the parties and decision of the learned Arbitral Tribunal shall be final and binding to both the sides. And therefore, civil dispute is pending between the parties and therefore, filing of present FIR can be said frivolous and abuse of process of law and same is filed by the company with an intention to escape from its liability of making payment. He further states that there is no allegation against the present applicant of stealing any goods and such allegations are vague. He further states that Joint Inspection Report was obtained by virtue of order of the learned Arbitral Tribunal and, therefore, the same is subject matter of arbitral proceedings and the learned Arbitral Tribunal is competent to adjudicate with the issued raised by IOCL in respect of inspection report. The FIR is completely unwarranted as the same is filed after lapse of more than one year. He further states that the applicant is merely an employee of the company and the complainant is trying to implicate him to arm-twist the company though the complainant availed option to move before the learned Arbitral Tribunal for ventilating any of the grievances about loss of equipment and as the complainant company has not got any relief, present FIR is filed. The Investigating Officer had illegally detained the present applicant without filing any arrest memo. He further submits that during his detentions, the Investigating Officer has obtained signatures on various papers. He further submits that there is strong apprehension that the investigating agency would misuse these documents against the applicant to falsely implicate him in the alleged offence. He further submits that the Investing Officer has conducted the investigation by unlawfully detaining the applicant without arresting him against his free will. He further submits that the Investigating Officer along with other police officers had visited the house of the applicant and when they did not find the applicant, they had threatened wife and children of the applicant. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has no right to intimidate the family members of the applicant. Inspite of the fact that the Investigating Officer had kept the applicant in illegal detention for two days. He further submits that the applicant belongs to the very reputed family and he has no prior antecedents and is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation in any manner. Therefore, considering the above facts, present applicant may be released on anticipatory bail.