Kavita Rajendra Sonawane vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

This case involves an application for anticipatory bail filed by Kavita Rajendra Sonawane (the applicant) under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant sought bail in connection with FIR No. 11210015220030 of 2022, registered on February 4, 2022, at D.C.B. Police Station, Surat City. The FIR pertains to offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2003, and Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The applicant's husband is alleged to be the main accused. The applicant's role, as per her submission, was limited to being present in the office and delivering tiffin to her husband, and she is a 23-year-old lady with a two-year-old child.

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered several factors: (1) the applicant was joined as an accused primarily due to her husband being the main accused; (2) there was no material to show the applicant controlled the company's day-to-day affairs or conspired to perpetrate the fraud; (3) the applicant is a young woman with a young child and no prior criminal record; and (4) the main accused (her husband) had already been arrested. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions including cooperation with the investigation, presence on specific dates, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and not leaving India without court permission. The Court clarified that the trial court should not be influenced by these prima facie observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, a 23-year-old woman with a young child and no prior antecedents, is entitled to anticipatory bail given the limited allegations against her, specifically that she was merely present in the office and delivered tiffin to her husband, who is the main accused? Petitioner's Argument: The applicant's counsel argued that the FIR's thrust was against the applicant's husband, and the allegations against the applicant were minimal, primarily stating her presence in the office. Considering her age, maternal status, and lack of active involvement, anticipatory bail should be granted. Revenue/State's Argument: The State objected, highlighting that the FIR alleged fraud involving a large sum. They contended that statutory licenses, including GST registration, were obtained in the applicant's name, suggesting her active role and making her claim of no involvement untenable. However, when questioned about material showing the applicant's active role in running the company or alluring depositors, the APP fairly conceded that there was no such material currently available.