RAHULKUMAR BABUBHAI MALANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) The present application is filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11197005240107 of 2024 registered with the Vadodara Taluka Police Station, Vadodara Rural of the offence punishable under Ss. 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned senior counsel Mr. Jal Unwala assisted by learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 1/2/2024 and is in jail ever since. Learned senior counsel Mr. Unwala has also submitted that the investigation is underway and the present application is at pre-indictment stage. It is further submitted that the first information report was registered against total four accused persons placing the present applicant-accused as accused No.1. According to the complaint, the alleged incident took place during the period between 9/11/2020 and 15/3/2022 for which the first information report came to be registered on 31/1/2024, i.e after a delay of almost four years. Learned senior counsel Mr. Unwala further submits that, in fact, the complainant and the applicant-accused are the partners of the firm, namely, Shreeji Inc. and the present complaint is a clear cut offshoot of the wrecked relationship of the partners due to some financial disputes. Learned senior counsel Mr. Unwala has also submitted that a partnership deed was executed between total seven partners on 19/12/2019 scattering into two groups consisting of four persons and three persons respectively. According to the complaint, the applicant-accused has illegally withdrawn an amount of Rs.7,50,000.00 through two different transactions without the knowledge of the complainant and other partners. Learned senior counsel Mr. Unwala has further submitted that to counter such allegation, the Bank statement of the applicant-accused has been appended along with the memo of the application which shewed that the applicant- accused has in all invested Rs.78,57,940.00 in terms of his 10% share in the partnership firm which is clearly mentioned in the partnership deed. It is moreso submitted that with the assent of all the partners, the present applicant-accused and the complainant had been appointed as the authorized signatories for conducting all the affairs relating to the bank operations on behalf of the firm. In short, they are the authorized signatories legally appointed by the partners. Learned senior counsel Mr. Unwala submits that subsequently, with the assent of all the partners, one of the partners, namely, Subhashbhai Gordhanbhai Kanani had also been appointed as the authorized signatory, a declaration whereof, was issued on the letterhead of the company on 1/8/2020 containing signatures of all the partners and they are not having any slightest of doubt as regards the authenticity of the said document. Even they have fairly and candidly admitted about the execution of the said document.