BINAY RAMESHCHANDRA RUSAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 C.R. No. 11192050220151 of 2022 with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Ss. 379, 407, 420, 285 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Mr. Vatsal S. Parikh, learned advocate for the applicant submits that, the applicant is totally innocent and has not played any role in the alleged offence, however, he has been falsely implicated in the present offence. He has submitted that the applicant was not present at the place of incident and is falsely implicated on the base of co-accused statement. Moreover, the owner of godown of Bhavna Transport, the premises from which the stolen chemical was found during the raid, has not even been arraigned as an accused, whereby the present applicant, who is neither present at the time of commission of the offence nor is the owner of the said premises, came to be falsely implicated in the alleged offence.

(3.) He has further submitted that the main accused as well as other co-accused, who were caught red-handed have all been enlarged on regular bail. Also, the accused No. 6, who had fled from the scene of offence, has been granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, he further urges that the applicant may also be granted anticipatory bail on suitable terms and conditions that may deem fit and proper to the Court to which, the present applicant has assured to abide by such conditions.