Abdulrehman Mustafabhai Alfamed vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Abdulrehma Mustafabhai Alfamed, filed an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bail was sought in connection with FIR C.R.No. 11210015220162 of 2022, registered with DCB Police Station, Surat. The FIR pertains to alleged offences under Sections 409, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has been in jail since November 5, 2022. The investigation is complete, and a charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was not involved in the alleged offences and that other co-accused had been granted bail on parity. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offences.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. The Court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant based on several considerations: the applicant had been in jail since November 5, 2022; the investigation was complete, and a charge-sheet had been filed; the prosecution's case did not identify the applicant as a beneficiary of the alleged scheme of claiming GST credit by fabricating forged documents, and the applicant was stated to be working under the main accused; and the applicant had no past antecedents. The Court, prima facie, found it to be a fit case to exercise discretion and enlarge the applicant on bail. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions, including not misusing liberty, not acting prejudicially to the prosecution, surrendering their passport, not leaving India without permission, providing their latest address, and marking their presence before the police station monthly. The Court also noted that the trial court should not be influenced by these preliminary observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature of the alleged offences and the stage of the proceedings? The applicant argued that they are not involved in the commission of the alleged offences and that other co-accused have been granted bail, entitling the applicant to bail on the ground of parity. The applicant's counsel relied on the fact that the applicant was working under the main accused and was not the beneficiary of the alleged scheme involving claiming GST credit through forged documents. The applicant also highlighted their clean past record. The respondent-State vehemently opposed the bail application, contending that the offences charged are serious and affect society at large. The State argued that, given the facts and allegations against the applicant, no discretion should be exercised in favour of granting bail.