Ravi Dilipbhai Oza vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. The Court considered several aspects, including the petitioner being in jail since April 2, 2019, the conclusion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences being five years, the submission that the prosecution's case rests on documentary evidence already collected, and that the case is triable by the Court of Magistrate. Additionally, the Court noted that co-accused had been enlarged on bail. The Court also took into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to certain conditions, including executing a personal bond and surety, not misusing liberty, not acting in a manner injurious to the prosecution's interest, surrendering passport, not leaving India without permission, marking presence at the police station, and furnishing residential address. The Trial Court was directed not to be influenced by the Court's prima facie observations.

Facts

The petitioner, Ravi Dilipbhai Oza, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The application was in connection with FIR I-C.R. No. 24 of 2019, registered at Morbi City, 'B' Division Police Station. The FIR alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Information Technology Act, and Section 132(1), (A), (J), (L) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had been in jail since April 2, 2019. The investigation had concluded, and a charge-sheet had been filed. The maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences was five years. Co-accused had been enlarged on bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations, gravity of the offences, the petitioner's role, the conclusion of the investigation, the filing of the charge-sheet, the maximum punishment, and the fact that co-accused have been granted bail? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that considering the nature of the offence, they may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. Respondent's contention: The State opposed the grant of regular bail, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.