ALOKBHAI AMRUTLAL JHAMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemant Makwana for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L. B. Dabhi, appearing on advance copy on behalf of the prosecution. 1. 1 The present is an application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whereby the applicant-the original complainant seeks cancellation of bail granted in favour of the private respondent No.2.

(2.) The court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dahod, while passing order in Criminal Misc. Application No.118 of 2017 allowed the private respondent No.2 to be on anticipatory bail in respect of First Information Report dated 07.02.2017 bearing Crime Register No. (I) 18 of 2017 registered with Dahod Town police station, Dahod, in respect of offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) The facts would be relevant. The complainant was owner of Mahindra XUV bearing registration No. MH-04- FF-2808. It was a vehicle purchased by him four years back at Mumbai. According to the FIR, somewhere in March, 2016 he started to go from Limbdi to Indore. He was having with him the original documents of the car as well as RTO registration book. As the car required some repairs, the complainant took his car to a garage. The mechanic told that a day would require to repair the car and asked the complainant to leave the car for one day. It was stated by the complainant that original documents relating to car were inadvertently left inside the car. The complainant telephoned his friend and requested him to come by another car. He requested his friend to stay there for a day and take the car after repairing. The complainant took the car of his friend named Divy and left for Indore. When the complainant came back after fifteen days, he went to the house of his friend Divya for taking back his car, but he was told by his friend that he has given the car to his friend one Sanjaybhai Mangilal Porval. The complainant returned back saying that whenever car comes, send the same to him. Thereafter, the car never came back. It was in that connection that the FIR was lodged. 3. 1 While granting anticipatory bail, learned Sessions Judge prima facie observed that since the said Sanjay Mangilal Porval committed suicide, the complaint was filed against the applicant and the story projected was believable. It was observed while granting bail that ingredients under sections 406 and 420 cannot go together in the facts of the case. The court viewed that the custodial investigation was needed and the accused could be granted anticipatory bail. 3. 2 Having regard to the nature of accusation, the exact role of the accused and also taking into consideration the total facts and the aspect, the sessions court further held that no prejudice would be caused to the investigation if the applicant accused is to be anticipatory bail.