BARAIYA RAMESHBHAI KAMALSHIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11198068230274 of 2023 with Bharatnagar Police Station, Bhavnagar City for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Ss. 66(D) of the IT Act and Ss. 12(1), 12(3) and 12(4) of the Gujarat Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act.

(2.) Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Apurva Kapadia, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely implicated in the offence and he has nothing to do with it. It is submitted that a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, the present applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity, as there is no specific role attributed to the applicant in the complaint and no material available that connects the applicant to the offence.

(3.) Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that this is not a fit case for consideration on the ground of parity, as the present applicant is directly involved in the offense. It is submitted that in the earlier bail application allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court for accused- Bhavesh, his name was mentioned in the complaint based on the statement of a candidate named Jayeshbhai. However, Jayeshbhai's statement was not recorded. Subsequently, significant progress has been made in the investigation since then, including the arrest of one of the co-accused and the recording of his statement. In his statement, the co- accused has alleged that the present applicant arranged a dummy candidate in place of the original candidate, and a dummy candidate was also arranged to take for the examination in his place. Upon considering these facts and investigative papers, it has become evident that the present applicant played an active role in the offense.