Zubin Prakashbhai Kapadia vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the allegations to be of the nature of transactions regarding the supply of goods. It took into account the applicant's long-standing business presence and the fact that his father and brother, also arrested in connection with the business, had been charge-sheeted and enlarged on bail. The Court also considered the applicant's submission regarding financial difficulties arising from demonetization and GST implementation, which led to payment issues. The Court noted that the Additional Public Prosecutor, under the instructions of the Investigating Officer, was unable to present any special circumstances against the applicant. The Court relied on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and others. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount and to cooperate with the investigation, remain present when required, not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and not leave India without court permission. The Investigating Officer was granted the liberty to file an application for remand, which the Magistrate would decide on merits. The Trial Court was cautioned not to be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court.

Facts

The applicant, Zubin Prakashbhai Kapadia, filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bail was sought in connection with FIR registered at C.R. No.I-64 of 2018 with Salabatpura Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the offence and the involvement of multiple victims. The complainant's advocate highlighted that the applicant's father and brother, also accused, had been enlarged on bail after being charge-sheeted, and that the applicant's previous anticipatory bail applications had been rejected by the trial court in February and August 2018. The applicant's counsel argued that the allegations pertained to business transactions and financial difficulties faced due to demonetization and GST implementation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the nature of the offence involved business transactions and that the applicant and his family had been in business for many years. They also pointed out that the applicant's father and brother, who were arrested in connection with the business, had been charge-sheeted and subsequently enlarged on bail. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted that financial difficulties faced due to demonetization and the implementation of GST led to the inability to make payments. The petitioner relied on the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and others. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent-State opposed the application, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the offence. They contended that the offence was widespread, affecting not only the informant but also nine other individuals. The dishonoring of cheques indicated a dishonest intention. The State also noted that an application for a warrant of arrest had already been filed.