RAJIV SURENDRA PHUKAN 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.11197014230070 registered with Dabhoi Police Station, Vadodara Rural for the offences punishable under Sec. 406 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 and 120B of IPC.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are totally false and baseless. The complainant and her husband were aware about all the discussions that had taken place with Bank of Baroda in connection with the transfer and take-over of the loans and common collateral securities of both the companies. Neither the Minutes of the meeting of EGM nor the signature of the complainant were forged as alleged. The loans were also paid- off before the filing of FIR, for which, the Banks have also issued "No Dues" and "No Charge" certificates. In fact, the applicants have paid Rs.35.00 Lacs to the complainant as personal loan through Bank transfer and the entire story has been got up as the complainant does not want to return the said amount and false complaint came to be filed. It was, therefore, prayed that discretion may be granted in favour of the applicants.

(3.) Learned APP assisted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. J.S. Unwala with learned advocate Ms. Tejal Vashi vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. On the two dates when the complainant is shown as present in the meeting, in fact, she was in U.S.A. It is contended that merely because the loan amount is repaid, it will not purge the applicants of their criminal act. It was, accordingly, urged to dismiss the application.