MOHAMMAD TAUFIQ @ BATKO HABIBULLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR being registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Surat, District: Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465,467, 471, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person, however, he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the trial is under progress and by now, 7 witnesses have been examined out of which 5 witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that one of the witness namely Shaikh Mahommad Irfan has given the name of the present applicant in his deposition but, that part of evidence is hear-say evidence. It is further submitted that during the cross examination, the said witness also stated that he has not given any reference about accused Mohamad Taufiq in his statement before the police but, for the first time he has narrated before the Court. So far as, Criminal incidents referred by the learned Trial Court in its order with respect the Criminal case No.12 of 2015 is concerned, the applicant is enlarged on bail as per the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.14011 of 2016 vide order dated 02.09.2016. It is further submitted that the applicant is original resident of Uttarpradesh, but for the purpose of work, at present he is residing in Jamnagar District. It is submitted that the applicant will report to the concerned police station for the purpose of marking presence and will also remain present before the Court as and when required by the Court. Learned advocate for the applicant upon instructions submits that the applicant is ready and willing to deposit Rs.25,000/- before the concerned trial Court, without prejudice to his rights and contentions. It is further submitted that applicant is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed while releasing the applicant on regular bail. It is therefore submitted that considering the nature of allegations, and the role attributed to the applicant, he may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State while opposing the present application submits that the present applicant is habitual offender and there are many criminal antecedents against him. It is submitted that in the present case, there is prima facie case against the applicant and therefore,looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, he may not be enlarged on bail.