Mohammadrizwan Razahusen Saiyed vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court allowed the application for regular bail. The investigation was complete, and a charge-sheet had been filed. The applicant was implicated based on the statement of Vijaysinh Mansaram Rathod. The prosecution alleged that the mobile phone used for firm registration belonged to Rathod, who initially claimed it was lost. However, Rathod later stated in his recorded statement that he had given his mobile phone to the applicant, possibly for use while his mother was in the hospital. The Court considered these facts and the role attributed to the applicant, finding that the application deserved consideration. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to several stringent conditions, including not tampering with evidence, maintaining law and order, providing his correct address, furnishing details of immovable properties, and not leaving India without prior permission. The Court also directed that the trial court should not be influenced by the prima facie observations made in this order.

Facts

The applicant, Mohammadrizwan Razakhusen Saiyed, filed an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case is that the applicant used a mobile phone belonging to Vijaysinh Mansaram Rathod to open and register a firm, which was subsequently used for availing Input Tax Credit. The applicant contended he was not involved in the alleged offences. The State opposed the bail application, citing a strong prima facie case against the applicant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail in connection with FIR C.R.No.11191011220167 of 2022, considering the allegations and his role, as per Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant argued that he was not involved in the commission of the alleged offences and, based on his role and the nature of the allegations, he should be granted bail with suitable conditions. The State, represented by the learned APP, opposed the application, contending that there was a strong prima facie case against the applicant because he had used the mobile phone belonging to Vijaysinh Mansaram Rathod. The State prayed for the dismissal of the application.