Babulal Keshrimal Jain vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the applicant's age of 76 years. It noted that the charge-sheet prima facie revealed that the allegations were primarily leveled against accused Nos. 1 and 2, who had already been released on regular bail. The Court also observed that custodial interrogation of the applicant would not be necessary as the prosecution's case was premised on documentary evidence. The Court relied on the Apex Court's decisions in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions including cooperation with the investigation, appearing before the police station on a specified date, not inducing witnesses, not obstructing investigation, furnishing address, and not leaving India without permission. The Court clarified that the investigating agency could still apply for police remand before the Magistrate, who would decide on merits, and the applicant would have the right to oppose such an application. The trial court was cautioned not to be influenced by the prima facie observations made in this order.

Facts

The applicant, Babulal Keshrimal Jain, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The FIR registered with CID Crime, Vadodara, alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2003, and Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Prohibition) Act, 1978. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and his son formed companies to procure money from investors between 2015 and 2020 without RBI permission, failing to provide promised returns. The applicant's son and another co-accused had already been granted regular bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, aged 76, is entitled to anticipatory bail considering his age, the fact that co-accused have been granted bail, and the nature of allegations, particularly when the prosecution's case relies on documentary evidence? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant is 76 years old and is implicated only because his son is involved. - His son, the prime accused, and another co-accused have already been released on regular bail. - No summons have been issued by CGST authorities against the applicant for tax evasion. - Investors have stated in their statements that they have received most of their money. - Custodial interrogation is not necessary at this stage. - The applicant is willing to cooperate with the investigation and trial and will abide by all conditions, including the investigating agency's right to seek remand. - Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgments in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra. Respondent's Arguments: - The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail due to the nature and gravity of the offence. - The applicant is a Director of several firms involved in cheating and fraud with investors.