PRATAPSINH R. RANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant- original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R No.11198015211289 of 2021 before Bortalav Police Station,Bhavnagar for the offence under Ss. 406, 420, 409, 114 and 201 of Indian Penal Code .

(2.) Heard Mr. Harshit Tolia, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Hardikkumar D.Rao learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.

(3.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that owner of the vehicle has been granted anticipatory bail and therefore, considering on the ground of parity, present applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. He has further submitted that as per the record vide order No. 26/2017, the administrative work and thereby, the authority to put the e-signature and to use the password was delegated to one Mr. N.M.Makwana, Head Clerk of Bhavnagar R.T.O. the above order was passed prior to the applicant took charge at Bhavnagar. Therefore, the use of the e-signature of the applicant is not by the applicant and therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. He has further submitted that the applicant is not at all involved in the crime in question, as it is apparent from the documents available on record. The applicant was correctly stated the description of the vehicles, in physical verification but entry clerk of RTO committed mistake in the column of class of vehicle, while entering the data. He has further submitted that the applicant has not received any financial benefit out of the alleged erroneous or false entry of the vehicles. In fact, no such benefit is earned by anyone. He has further submitted that the RTO, Bhavnagar had also prepared and forwarded a detailed office report to the superior, wherein, the applicant is not named as an earring officer. He has also submitted that pursuant to the show-cause notice, the department has not initiated any action against the applicant. Therefore, learned advocate for the applicant has requested this Court that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.