AJAYSINH HARINATHSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2017-7-85
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on July 25,2017

Ajaysinh Harinathsinh Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This application is filed seeking bail und er Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 40 6, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for which FIR came to be registered at C.R. No.I- 34 of 2015 with Infocity Police Station, Gandhinagar.
(2.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. During the course of the hearing, it is pointed out that the co-accused has deposited the entire disputed amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/-(Rs. One Crore and Ten Lakhs), which came to be transferred to the trial Court by an order dated 20.10.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5330 of 2016 which was preferred by the co- accused. On the condition of such deposit, regular bail was admitted to the co-accused Rasikbhai Amratbhai Jaiswal. 2.1 Said Rasikbhai has filed an affidavit inter alia stating that the said deposit may be considered as the deposit made by the present accused as well. 2.2 Learned counsel for the complainant under the instructions from the client submitted that, the complainant has no objection for admitting the petitioner to anticipatory bail in light of the above referred facts. He also contended that the the private properties are negotiating for settlement. 2.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the protection of this Court, the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer who has already recorded his statement and thereafter since last about one year, the petitioner has not been requisitioned by the Investigating Officer. 2.4 Considering the totality of the above circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the case for admitting the petitioner to anticipatory bail is made out. The petitioner is ordered to be admitted to anticipatory bail.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including impositions of conditions with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.