LAKHMANBHAI BHIKHUBHAI KARAVADRA 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 CR No.I-11218015230021 of 2023 registered with the Ranavav Police Station, Porbandar of the offence punishable under Ss. 406, 409, 120-B, 465, 467, 471 and 477(a) of the IPC and Ss. 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(2.) Learned senior advocate Mr. Nirupam Nanavaty assisted by learned advocate Mr.R.G. Vaghela appearing for the applicant has submitted that the so called incident has occurred during the period between 1/1/2020 and 4/1/2023 and the first information report came to be lodged on 13/1/2023. The present applicant-accused was arrested on 13/7/2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty has further submitted that the present applicant-accused has been named in the FIR. The present applicant-accused is the owner of the Fair Price Shop and doing the business of selling grains to the people belonging to the poor strata of the society. The applicant-accused used to purchase the said grains from the Government Agency. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty has also submitted that in the present case, the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. It is further submitted that there is no recovery of discovery at the instance of the present applicant-accused. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty has submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the present applicant-accused, along with the other co-accused as shown in the first information report, have hatched a criminal conspiracy by designing a systematic racket to siphon the Government funds and thereby misappropriate the funds of the Government worth Rs.99,77,551.00. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty has also submitted that it is found out from the record that the said contract was given to one Hathiyabhai Dudabhai Khunti, who in turn, entrusted sub-contract to one Rahulbhai Lakhmanbhai Karavadra knowing fully well that he cannot assign the sub-contract to anybody as per the Government norms. It is submitted that the said Hathibhai Dudabhai Khunti has already been released on anticipatory bail. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty has further submitted that the present applicant-accused, being the father of Rahul, has acted as a representative of Rahul who is not directly or indirectly connected with the commission of crime. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty has further submitted that all the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate. It is also submitted that now the investigation has been completed and considering the voluminous record of the charge-sheet papers, it seems that the trial would take considerable long period of time to conclude. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty has further submitted that the other co-accused persons whose roles are graver than the present applicant-accused, have already been released either on anticipatory bail or on regular bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as the Sessions Court. Under the circumstances, learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.

(3.) The learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni 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 since the present applicant-accused and the other accused persons, in collusion with each other, have hatched a criminal conspiracy with a sole intention to play a fraud with the Government and siphoned away the funds of the Government running in lakhs of rupees, the present applicant-accused may not be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that a scheme is being run by the Government since long with an intention to provide grains to the people of the poor strata of the society with a reasonable price. The said grains have been stolen from the godown of the Government by the accused persons and sold it in the market and thereby have earned a huge amount of money worth approximately Rs.1.25 Crores. Therefore, considering the role attributed to the present applicant-accused this is a fit case wherein discretionary power of this Court is not required to be exercised in favour of the applicant-accused.