STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KANAKSINH MOHANSINH MANGROLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application against the judgment order dated 16-7-2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, in Cri.Misc.Appln.No.917 of 2004 whereby the application for anticipatory bail preferred by the present respondent no.1-accused in connection with the offence registered as I.C.R.No.8 of 2003 with the DCB Police Station, Surat, was allowed.

(2.) The complainant, Shri Babubhai Somabhai Gamit, the then Chairman of the Suryapur Co-Operative Bank Ltd. filed a written complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Surat, on 29-1-2003 for the offence under Secs.406, 408, 409, 420 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code against 60 persons for misappropriating huge amounts initially estimated to be more than Rs.44.00 crores. The Commissioner of Police directed the complaint to be registered with DCB Police Station, Surat and it was registered as DCB Police Station, Surat, vide C.R.No.I-8 of 2003 and started investigation. During the course of investigation, Secs.465, 468, 471 and 120-B of IP code were added, various persons were interrogated and some persons were arrested and sent to judicial custody. Since name of the present respondent No.1 was disclosed as one of the accused and as he was not available for interrogation, the investigating agency obtained order from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, for issuing warrant under Sec.70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for brevity) against him. Instead of remaining present before the investigating agency, the respondent no.1 preferred Cri.Misc.Appln.No.478 of 2003 under Sec.438 of the Code before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat. After giving opportunity to the concerned parties, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat, rejected the same on 22-9-2003. Against the said order of rejection, he preferred Cri.Misc.Appln.No.7822 of 2003 in the High Court. In pursuance of issuance of notice, State appeared and said application was withdrawn by the respondent No.1-accused vide order dated 10-11-2003 passed by this Court (Coram: A.L.Dave,J.) which runs as under:

(3.) The matter was not carried further by the accused and therefore, the above order has become final between the parties. Instead of remaining present before the investigating agency, the respondent No.1-accused again preferred Cri.Misc.Appln.No.227 of 2004 for anticipatory bail before the court below as a successive application on the ground of change in circumstance. On perusal of said application, it appears that all possible grounds taken in earlier application have been taken as is reflected in the said application running into 37 pages which is a part of the present proceedings. Said successive application for anticipatory bail was entertained by the learned Sessions Judge on 11-2-2004 and same was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, on merits on 23-3-2004.