SHAILESHBHAI BABUBHAI BALDHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been preferred under sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the complaint being FIR No.11191015220578 registered with Nikol Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sec. 406, 420, 120B, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC and sec. 3 of the GPID Act.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Bhuptani for the applicant submitted that the applicant was an employee of the Firm, whose Proprietor was original accused No.1. No property was under the dominion of the applicant, which he could have converted for his own use. Further, the FIR has been filed against the long delay of five years, which has not been explained. It was, accordingly, urged to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant by enlarging him on anticipatory bail.

(3.) Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. In the Affidavit filed by the I.O. before the Court below, he has referred to the various documentary evidence collected during the course of investigation into the impugned FIR. It appears from the material on record that the applicant herein and the co-accused were running a ponzi scheme whereby they assured the investors that they would get double the invested amount. Though the applicant appears to hold a licence under the Money Lenders Act but, prima facie, the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence could not be ruled out at this stage.