DHARMENDRA @ DHARMESH RANJITLAL MEVAWALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. registered at C.R. No. I-12 of 2018 with Athwalines Police Station, District-Surat, for the offences punishable under Sections-406, 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section-66 of IT Act and Section-7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(2.) Heard learned advocate, for the applicant and Mr. H. K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that applicant is a fair price shop holder. The allegations against the present applicant is that irregularities were found from the shop of present applicant. The present applicant in collusion with other co-accused used duplicate software and forged the e-coupon and made financial benefit out of it. It is further submitted that the offence is magistrate triable and the applicant is in jail since last six months approximately. It is also submitted that fair price shop license is also cancelled by the State Authority in connection with the alleged incident. It is further submitted that investigation is over. Charge-sheet is filed, but further investigation under Section-173(8) of Cr.P.C. is going on and the statement of some of the card holders are to be recorded. Some card holders have admitted that they have received their stock of food from the fair price shop of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is not likely to influence upon card holders and witness. The applicant is not a habitual offender and have roots in Surat district and applicant is ready and willing to abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court. It is further submitted that upon instruction that without prejudice to the rights and contentions, the applicant is also ready and willing to deposit 50% of the alleged amount i.e. Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only). Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person, however, he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offences. It is further submitted that from the FIR, there is no prima facie case against the present applicant for committing alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant is not having any criminal antecedent and he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and therefore, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the accusation made against the applicant and the role attributed to the applicant, they may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.