HARESHKUMAR MADHUBHAI GONDALIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered at C.R. No. I - 149 of 2017 with Mahidharpura Police Station, Surat City, for the offenses punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person, however he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offences. It is submitted that the case is based on documents and all the relevant documents have been collected by now. It is further submitted that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation of the applicant, at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the applicant, upon instructions, states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate for the applicant, upon instructions, further states that without prejudice to his rights and contentions, the applicant is ready and willing to deposit Rs.20,00,000/- before the trial court and out of Rs.20,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- will be deposited by the applicant at the time of executing bail bond and remaining amount of Rs.15,00,000/- will be deposited by the applicant within a period of six months thereafter, and he has no objection if the entire amount is permitted to be withdrawn by the complainant Bank. It is also stated that the applicant will not claim refund of the said amount, if he is acquitted in future.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.