2021 (9) TMI 85 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory Bail - Dishonor of cheque - applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency - offenses punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B), 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2003 - HELD THAT - Perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, the anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 2010 (12) TMI 1085 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT to hold that No hard and fast rules can be laid down in discretionary matters like the grant or refusal of bail, whether anticipatory or otherwise. No such rules can be laid down for the simple reason that a circumstance which, in a given case, turns out to be conclusive, may have no more than ordinary signification in another case. The present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest on executing a personal bond of ₹ 10,000/- with one surety of like amount on the conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offenses under Sections 406, 420, 120(B), 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2003.

Analysis:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with a FIR registered for various offenses. The applicant's counsel argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary at this stage, and the applicant would cooperate with the investigation and trial proceedings. The applicant expressed willingness to abide by all conditions, including Investigating Agency's powers for remand applications. The counsel emphasized the absence of past criminal antecedents for the applicant.

The Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State opposed anticipatory bail based on the nature and gravity of the offenses. After hearing both parties, the Court considered the allegations, gravity of offenses, and the accused's role. Without delving into detailed evidence, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Court considered various aspects, including statutory notices issued, franchisee agreements, and absence of criminal antecedents for the applicant.

The Court referred to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in previous cases, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach in granting anticipatory bail. Eventually, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, ordering release upon arrest on specified conditions. These conditions included cooperation with the investigation, appearance at the Police Station on designated dates, refraining from influencing witnesses, and not leaving the country without court permission. The Investigating Officer was allowed to file remand applications as deemed necessary, subject to the Magistrate's decision on merits.

The Court clarified that despite the anticipatory bail, the Investigating Agency could apply for police remand if required, with the applicant's presence mandated before the Magistrate. The applicant was advised to seek a stay against any remand order if granted. The Court directed that its observations should not influence the trial court during the trial proceedings. The rule was made absolute to the specified extent, with direct service permitted for compliance.