LALURAM LAXMANSINH DANGI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Samir Afzal Khan for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) By way of this application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant prays for being released on anticipatory bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. I - 20 of 2017 registered with "B" Division Patan City Police Station, District Patan, on 20/2/2017 for offences punishable under Ss. 406 , 409 , 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sec. 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2003.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Samir Afzal Khan for the applicant would submit that the present applicant has been arraigned as an accused, more particularly on account of the fact that he was a Member of one M/s Arbuda Credit Co-operative Society Limited (Multi State), Mount Abu, Sirohi, Rajasthan, registered under the Multi State Co-operative Society Act. Learned Advocate would submit that as such a total of 21 FIRs have been registered against the Chairman and Members of the Co-operative Society and whereas the present applicant has been arraigned as an accused in the present FIR only. Learned Advcoate would submit that the present applicant though he had been shown as a Member of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society, he did not have any control over the management and affairs of the Bank in question, more particularly the management being in the hands of the other accused namely the principal accused etc. Learned Advocate would futher submit taht there is also an allegation against the present applicant of having purchased around 250 Bigas of land at Sirohi Distict, more particularly such purchase in the name of the present applicant, since the present applicant was a member of a Scheduled Tribe Community. Learned Advocate would submit that in fact for the said transaction, proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act had been intiated and whereas the Enforecement Directorate, had taken over the possession of the land in question and whereas it also appears that in the charge-sheet filed by the Enforecement Directorate, the present applicant had not been arraigned as an accused. Learned Advcoate, having regard to the same, more particularly relying upon the bail orders in case of other co-accused to whom similar role has been attributed, would request that this Court may release the present applicant on anticipatory bail.