PRADEEPKUMAR KASHINATH SHAHU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present successive bail application has been filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the complaint being CR NO. I- 11210015220160 of 2022 registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City for the offence punishable under Ss. 409 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. That, earlier the applicant has approached this court by way of Criminal Misc. Application No.907 of 2023 with a request to release him on bail but vide order dtd. 18/1/2023, he was permitted to withdraw such application with a liberty approach competent court after filing of the charge sheet. That, investigation of the present offence has been completed and the investigating officer has filed charge sheet against the present applicant. That, the complaint has been loged on 14/10/2022 which is late by 10 years. That, the investigation of this case has been made by the Eco Cell and thereafter, it was transferred to the DCB Police Station. That the allegation against the present applicant was relating to the fact that the applicant was having two PAN Card and two Passport but the police has not made any investigation regarding so called bogus PAN Card and Passport and instead of that, the applicant himself has written a letter to the Income Tax Department regarding second PAN Card and the present case is based upon the documentary evidence. That the applicant is the Chairman of the Hospital as well as one businessman and the complainant has misused the police machinery. That the applicant has not made any cheating with the bank.

(3.) It was further submitted by learned Senior Advocate for the applicant that complainant happens to be one of the closet friend of the present applicant and he had an access to the office of the applicant from where cheque book of the applicant was stolen and some of the cheques was misused by forging his signature for which, complaint has also been preferred under the provisions of the Sec. 138 of the NI Act. That, on perusal of FIR clearly indicates that the dispute is entirely of civil in nature and has been given criminal colour with a view to tarnish the reputation of the applicant. Ultimately, it was requested by learned senior advocate for the applicant to allow present application.