9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 30 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - Grant of Regular Bail - offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 504, 506(2), 120-B and 34 of IPC - HELD THAT - It appears that there are allegations and counter allegations made by the parties. The notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued and the same has been replied by the applicant and applicant has given a complaint against Himanshu Shah. All those facts could be examined during the trial. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds this to be a fit case where discretion could be exercised in favour of the applicant. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail registered with Sachin GIDC Police Station, District Surat on executing a personal bond of ₹ 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues involved:
Application for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offenses under sections 406, 409, 420, 504, 506(2), 120-B, and 34 of IPC. Analysis: The applicant, through their advocate, argued that they did not receive any yarn prior to the alleged misdeeds by the co-accused who had been granted anticipatory bail. The applicant had previously filed a complaint and replied to a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the cheques were under stop payment instruction. The defense claimed that the applicant had categorically denied receiving the yarns and accused no.1 had misused identities to cheat the complainant without taking any credit on GST. It was requested that the applicant be granted regular bail. The Additional Public Prosecutor, supported by the complainant's advocate, contended that both accused had duped the complainant with the intention to cheat from the beginning. They highlighted that multiple e-payment messages were sent to the applicant, showing knowledge of the transactions and undermining the claim of ignorance. The prosecution urged against granting discretion in favor of the applicant. Upon hearing both parties and reviewing the evidence, the Court noted the allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties. It acknowledged the issuance of a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the applicant's reply, and the complaint against another individual. The Court determined that these facts could be examined during the trial and found it a fit case to exercise discretion in favor of the applicant, granting regular bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and ordered the applicant's release on regular bail upon executing a personal bond with specified conditions. The applicant was directed not to misuse liberty, act against the prosecution's interest, surrender passport if any, not leave India without permission, provide the current residence address, and comply with COVID-19 related protocols. Any breach of these conditions would empower the Sessions Judge to take appropriate action. The bail bond was to be executed before the lower Court with jurisdiction. The Court made the rule absolute to the specified extent, permitting direct service and instructing the registry to communicate the order promptly to the relevant authorities.
|
