MALEK NAUSHADALAM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant has filed this Application under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR No. 11191045230777/2023 registered with Sola Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 25(1-a)(1-b) and 29 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing with leanred Advocate Mr. Prateek S. Bhatia. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta has submitted that the Applicant has not been named in the FIR. The present Applicant had purchased a fire arm from the coaccused namely Prateek Kumar Ishwarbhai Chaudhary along with the licence. At the time of purchase, the Applicant was not aware that the licence, which was provided to him by the said Prateek Chaudhary was a forged one. The Applicnt has not played any role in forgery of the said arm licence. He submitted that as soon as the present Applicant came to know that the arm licence provided to him by the coaccused was forged, the Applicant has surrendered the fire arm to the concerned authorities. Considering the same, the Applicant cannot be termed as accused but he is victim to the coincidence. He submitted that there are no antecedents against the present Applicant. He therefore submitted to allow the present Application and enlarge the Applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

(3.) The Application is opposed by leanred APP Mr. L.B.Dabhi inter alia contending that for the purpose of procuring the licence for fire arms the Application is required to be made to the concerned autbhorities after following the necessary procedure and after payment of requisite fees. The present Applicant has neither followed the said procedure nor has he paid any fees for the said licence. The Applicant had proceured the fire arm from the coaccused by paying him some amount. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.