SANDIPKUMAR MANUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210015230030 of 2023 registered with the D.C.B. Police Station, Surat of the offence punishable under Ss. 406, 409, 420, 34 and 120(B) of the IPC and Ss. 4,5, and 6 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act and Sec. 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2003.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. C.B. Upadhyay appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the so called incident took place during the period between 9/1/2019 and 18/1/2023 for which the first information report came to be lodged on 18/1/2023. The applicant-accused came to be arrested on 22/3/2023 and since then he is in jail. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has also been filed. He was working as a Director in the Shukul Wealth Creator LLP. It is submitted that the present applicant-accused is exonerated from the liabilities of the aforementioned company by the SEBI. It is also submitted that the applicant-accused has not gained any monetary benefit out of the said transaction and the applicant has never met the first informant or other witnesses. Learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay has also submitted that one another lady accused, namely, Happy Kishorbhai Kanani, who was shown to be the Director of the Company has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Court. The other identically situated co-accused persons have also been enlarged on bail by this Court. Learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay has also submitted that the case of the prosecution hinges upon the documentary evidences and voluminous record has been collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that all the offences as alleged are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate. Learned advocate Mr. Upadhyay has also submitted that in another complaint filed against the applicant-accused in the State of Maharashtra, he has already been enlarged on bail. Under the circumstances, learned advocate for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.

(3.) The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP has submitted that from the charge-sheet papers, the role of the present applicant-accused is clearly spelt out. He has actively participated in the commission of the offence. As per the case of the prosecution, the applicant-accused has lured the people by inviting them to invest their hard earned money in the company knowing fully well that the company is not working in a proper mode and thereby duped the people at large and, therefore, this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused.