DIPBHAI MAHESHBHAI TANNA 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 C.R. No.11196004230416 of 2023 with Gotri Police Station, Vadodara the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence and he is falsely implicated in the offence. It is submitted that the applicant has not committed a breach of trust and did not forge any documents as alleged in the complaint and nothing incriminating has been revealed or discovered regarding the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant had no intention to deceive anyone. Furthermore, in connection with the present offense, a civil proceeding has also been initiated which indicates that this case pertains to a civil matter. It is submitted that the applicant has already filed an affidavit- cum-undertaking to demonstrate his bona fides. The applicant has small children, and he is the sole breadwinner for his family. Learned 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. 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 and submitted that The applicant is directly involved in the offense, as he issued tickets for travel from Ahmedabad to Dubai, which were subsequently canceled. The complainant could not travel, and for this action, the applicant received a substantial amount, which was not returned to the complainant as the applicant had signed the MoU to refund the money in case of any irregularity. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be denied that the applicant was involved in the offense. Therefore, learned APP submits that the application be rejected.