Afroz Nisharbhai Malek vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Afroz Nisharbhai Malek, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with FIR C.R. 11198011220052 of 2022, registered at Gangajaliya Police Station, Bhavnagar, for offences under Sections 255, 256, 260, 465, 471, 473, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant has been in custody since March 14, 2022. The prosecution opposed the bail application, citing the applicant's conduct and the nature of the accusation. The charge sheet indicates the applicant allegedly forged a notary stamp to assist co-accused in obtaining a GST number. Co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail, and the applicant has no prior record.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The reasoning was based on the applicant's period of incarceration since March 14, 2022, the fact that co-accused with similar roles had been granted bail, and the absence of any prior criminal record for the applicant. The Court explicitly stated that it was not entering into the merits of the case. The operative direction was to release the applicant on regular bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Several conditions were imposed, including not misusing liberty, not acting against the prosecution's interest, surrendering passport, not leaving Gujarat without permission, and providing updated residence information. The Court also noted that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the charges under Sections 255, 256, 260, 465, 471, 473, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the fact that the applicant has been in custody since March 14, 2022? The applicant argued that considering their role and period of confinement, they should be enlarged on bail with suitable conditions. The State argued that due to the applicant's conduct and the nature of the accusation, bail discretion should not be exercised in their favour. The Court noted that co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail and the applicant has no prior record.