JAYESHBHAI DESAIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicants have filed this Application under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the Applicants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11215002231146/2023 registered with Anand Town Police Station, Anand.

(2.) Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati appearing with leanred Advocate Mr. Vandan K. Baxi for the Applicants and learned APP Mr. L.B.Dabhi appearing on behalf of the Respondent - State of Gujarat.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati has submitted that the major offence which is alleged against the present Applicants is punishable under Sec. 389 of the Indian Penal Code in which punishment prescribed is imprisonment which may extend to 10 Years. The said offence is made bailable by the statute. He submitted that the offence under Sec. 389 of IPC has been added to the FIR by the first informant very cleaverly with an intention to circumvent the provision of Sec. 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the other offences alleged against the Applicants are punishable for less than 7 Years. He submitted that the Personal Assistant of the Accused No.1 namely Gautambhai Chaudhari, who had copied the vidoe clippings in question in the Pen-Drive and had sent the same for publication in the media has not been arraigned as an accused. He further submitted that ther is no iota of any corruption in the present offence and therefore the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act have not been invoked by the prosecution. The Accused No.1 was being harassed by the then District Collector and therefore with a view to take revenge for the same, as per the case of the prosecution itself, the present conspiracy was hatched. He submitted that the present FIR has been lodged by the Police Inspector and the same has not been lodged by the District Collector who was really aggrieved. He submitted that as per the case of prosecution, the entire conspiracy was hatched with a view to get five controversial files pertaining to NA Permission cleared from the then District Collector. However, from the facts emerging on record, no such files were ever cleared by the then District Collector and therefore the offence punishable under Sec. 389 of IPC is not made out against the present Applicants. The Applicants have been arrested in connection with the offence in question on 19/8/2023. There are no antecedents against present Applicant No.1 and there is only one antecedent against the present Applicant No.2 wherein subsequently the FIR has been quashed by the Court. There was no monetary gain to any of the Applicants from the incident in question. He also submitted that the Applicant No.1 is a Deputy Mamlatdar whereas Applicant No.2 is a Practicing Advocate in the field of Revenue Matters and there was no reason for the present Applicants to commit the present offence. He therefore submitted to allow the presen Application and enlarge the Applicants on bail subject to suitable conditions.