KAILASH SUBHASH JADHAV Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Ses. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the complaint being FIR No.11196010200080 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Vadodara City for offences punishable under Ses. 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477, 120B and 506(2) of IPC.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Vyas for the applicant submitted that the dispute relates to accounts of the partnership firm, which is a Gym. The business of Gym was started by the applicant and complainant in partnership in the year 2015 and all the affairs of the business was within the knowledge of the complainant since then. It is alleged against the applicant that he had forged the signature of the complainant and had obtained loans from different Banks in the name of partnership firm and utilized the amount for his personal gains. He submitted that on the contrary, the complainant was aware of all the banking transactions / loans availed in the name of the partnership firm, which is clear from the Whatsapp conversations / E-mails, which have been produced on record. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas took the Court through the documents on record, including the charge-sheet papers. It is contended that the allegations of forgery have been made only with a view to settle the accounts of the partnership firm in his favour. It is, accordingly, urged to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant by releasing him on regular bail.

(3.) Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. The investigating agency had collected the alleged forged documents and had sent it for analysis to F.S.L. Pursuant thereto, the report of Hand-writing Expert has been received, which stated that the signature of the complainant had been forged. It also appears from the material on record that the applicant had diverted funds to the tune of more than Rs.3.00 Crores belonging to the partnership firm for his personal use. It also appears that the applicant had opened two more Gyms at different places in the name of the partnership firm against the wish and will of the complainant, who was also a partner of the firm and also without settling the earlier accounts. Thus, prima facie, the applicant appears to be involved in the commission of alleged crime. In the result, the application is rejected.