DUSHYANT HARICHANDRA GOEL 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 the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being CR No.11199006230367 of 2023 registered with Ankleshwar Rural Police Station, Dist. Bharuch for the offences punishable under Ss. 227, 284, 114, 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, 420 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned Senior advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. Learned senior advocate for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is falsely implicated in the offence and he has nothing to do with the offence. It is submitted that the present applicant is a businessman and owner of the company. It is submitted that the applicant entrusted the work of transportation of hazardous chemicals to one Dhruv Manoj Meena. It is submitted that Tanker No.MH 04 EN 9367 was found tampered and with the false Registration Number Plate. It is submitted that the present applicant has nothing to do with any forgery or to change any number plate and he is not connected with any offence. The allegation levelled to change number plate or tampered is not even valuable security and applicant has not played any direct or indirect role and even driver of the tanker has not made an accused. It is further submitted that nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused. It is further submitted that except Ss. 467 and 471, all alleged offences are bailable. It is submitted that no past criminal antecedent is reported against the present applicant. Learned senior advocate for the applicant has submitted that he is ready and willing to join the investigation. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. It is stated that the applicant is involved in the offence and he is the owner of the company and considering the statement of Dhruv Meena, it is appears that under the instructions of the present applicant, transportation of the hazardous wastage and chemicals being done and 32 times Bank account transactions is notices, the amount being transferred by the present applicant in the account of Dhruv Meena and he has actively participated in the crime. It is further submitted that not only number plate but also chasis and engine number of the vehicle is also erased. It is also submitted that offence is serious in nature. Hence, custodial interrogation is required and he requested to dismiss the present application.