STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KISHORBHAI RATILAL CHALIYAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitions challenging the same order dated 30. 03. 2007 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat releasing the respondent on bail were argued and heard together and are disposed by this common judgment. While one of the petitions is filed by the original complainant, the other is filed by the State to challenge the impugned order substantially on similar grounds. The respondent concerned is stated to be an advocate and accused of offences punishable under Sections 408,420,467,468,471, 477-A, 120-B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code vide F. I. R. dated 16. 12. 2005 which was registered as C. R. No. 266 of 2005 in Athwalines Police Station of Surat. Pursuant to that F. I. R. , petitioner was arrested as late as on 26. 11. 2006 and taken into judicial custody on 30. 11. 2006. Upon investigation of the offences, first chargesheet dated 04. 05. 2006 was filed naming eight persons as accused and three other persons, including the petitioner, were stated to be absconding. After arrest of the respondent, second supplementary chargesheet dated 03. 12. 2006 was filed wherein the petitioner is shown as accused person for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 477-A, 471, 120-B, 384, 385 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 147,71 and 94 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.

(2.) IT was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not available for 11 months before he was arrested. In his capacity as Secretary of Surat Modhvanik Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited, he had been involved in a huge fraud and siphoning of money which were deposited in the society by poor labourers, hawkers and such other humble people. It was submitted that at the end of the investigation and even at the time of making the impugned order, there was sufficient material to prima facie indicate active involvement of the respondent in loss, mismanagement or misappropriation of amounts exceeding Rs. 8,81,00,000/ -. It was also submitted that Chairman and Manager of the society, the other main accused persons, were not released on bail and their bail applications were rejected and such orders rejecting their bail applications were confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Despite these facts and disregarding the relevant considerations, the respondent was released on bail by the impugned order, according to the submission.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Shakeel Kureshi for the respondent concerned submitted that the respondent was a respectable professional and a public figure with some reputation and he was all throughout available for investigation but not arrested by the police immediately after the complaint. He further submitted that, by now, trial against all the accused persons had commenced and 16 witnesses out of total 311 witnesses were already examined. On that basis, he submitted that liberty of the respondent may not be curtailed at this stage when there was no scope for allegation of tampering with any evidence and as the respondent was all throughout available and was not violating any of the conditions on which he was released on bail.