Shaikh Riyaz Abdul Aziz vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Shaikh Riyaz Abdul Aziz, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with CR.NO.11191011210152 of 2021, registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 20, 21, and 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The applicant's company, Fiber Story Communication Private Limited, supplied gazettes for a call center to co-accused Tabrez and Farjan for Rs. 75,000/-. The applicant's company is a GST payer, and regular payments were received from SS World. There is no allegation of illegal earnings shared with co-accused. The prosecution alleges the applicant instructed co-accused on converting foreign calls to GSM calls via VOIP, routing international calls as general calls, causing damages of Rs. 12,46,654/- to the government treasury.

Held

The Court allowed the application for regular bail. The Court considered the offences invoked against the applicant under Sections 406, 420, and 120B of the IPC, with the maximum punishment under the Indian Telegraph Act being 3 years. The Court noted that the applicant's company sold EPBX-Domestic Call Center setup and server for Rs. 75,000/-, as evidenced by the invoice. Crucially, there was nothing on record to suggest that the applicant had shared any illegal earnings with any co-accused. Considering the accusations, the applicant's attributed role, and the fact that the trial would take considerable time, the Court found it to be a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety, subject to several conditions, including not misusing liberty, not acting against prosecution interests, surrendering passport, not leaving India without permission, providing residence details, and marking presence at the police station fortnightly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the offences alleged and the applicant's role, in light of Sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 20, 21, 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's company supplied gazettes for Rs. 75,000/-, and its role ended after installation. Statements from Jio Company indicate purchases were made from them, and the applicant's company is a GST payer. There are no allegations of illegal earnings shared with co-accused. The applicant's partner visited the site for installation on the instructions of co-accused. Revenue's Arguments: The prosecution contends that the applicant instructed co-accused on converting foreign calls to GSM calls through VOIP, routing international calls as general calls, thereby causing damages of Rs. 12,46,654/- to the government treasury, contrary to DOT guidelines. Therefore, discretion should not be exercised in favour of the applicant.