BIRJU KISHOREKUMAR SALLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant accused under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Act 2008 ("the NIA Act" for short) read with section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 as well as under section 8(3) of the Anti-Hijacking Act 2016 ("the Act" for short) against the order dated 30.3.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Designated Court), Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.7 of 2018 refusing the bail to the appellant - accused.

(2.) The appellant - accused, by way of preferring the present appeal, inter alia, contended that he is innocent and he has been wrongly roped in the crime in question. It is further contended that even if the material in the nature of threat note which came to be seized may be believed to be true then also that is not credible threat and the accused has not committed any offence constituting the offence as defined under section 3 of the Act. It is further contended that the appellant accused has not committed any offence so as to make it punishable under section 4(b) of the Act. It is further contended that the accused is reputed and respected figure in the business circle and is having successful jewellery business and is engaged full time in the same and he is also high income tax payer having declared income of almost Rs. 50 lakhs in the current and previous years and used to pay income tax regularly. It is further contended that the accused is not likely to jump the bail and it is assured to abide by the terms and conditions which may be imposed upon him while enlarging him on bail. The attention of the Court is also drawn towards the family circumstances as well as young age of the accused and that the accused is having two young children. It is further contended that learned Designated Court has not considered the application for bail filed by the accused appropriately and not dealt with the same in accordance with the provisions of law and therefore, the judgment and order of learned Designated Court is required to be quashed and set aside. Lastly, it is prayed to enlarge the accused on bail.

(3.) We have heard Mr.S.V.Raju, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr.Akash Singh, learned advocate for the appellant, Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No. We have also perused the Record and Proceedings of learned Designated Court as well as charge-sheet which came to be submitted by the NIA before the learned Designated Court.