JAYESH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.K.C.Shah, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State.

(2.) I have heard Mr.Oza, learned Counsel appearing with Ms.Ahuja for the petitioners, Mr.Goswami, learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr.K.C.Shah, learned APP for the State.

(3.) It has been contended by Mr.Oza that in connection with the very complaint, the father of petitioner No.1, Mr.Gopal Ramani was arrested and thereafter as per the order dated 10-11-2003 passed by this Court (Coram: D.P.Buch, J.) in Criminal Misc. Application No.8917 of 2003 he has been released on regular bail. Mr.Oza submitted that the Original Complainant is indebted heavily and there are a large number of creditors and petitioner No.1 and his father being Advocates, the complaint is filed against the strong persons with a view to see that no other creditors would go to the complainant for collection and recovery of the amount. Mr.Oza also submitted that the I.O. in the proceedings of habeas corpus has filed the affidavit stating that no substance is found till that date in the complaint and as per the submission of Mr.Oza, the brother of the complainant, who is alleged to have been abducted, is seen by one Jayesh and the I.O. has not taken care to record statement of such person and, therefore, he submitted that it would be a case for granting all the petitioners, the anticipatory bail. Mr.Oza submitted that petitioner No.1 is an Advocate practising at Baroda, petitioner No.2 is the wife of Gopal Ramani, who is also an Advocate and father of petitioner No.1 and so far as petitioner No.3 is concerned, he is aged 84 years and he is also a patient of paralysis and bed-ridden and, therefore, it has been submitted that the allegations made by the complainant, prima facie, shows that they are with a view to put the pressures upon the other creditors and they do not inspire any confidence.