Parvej Rahimbhai Malek vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Parvej Rahimbhai Malek, a 24-year-old law student, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The application was filed in connection with FIR No. A-11210015210109 of 2021, registered with DCB Police Station, Surat, for offences under Sections 406, 420, 409, 465, 468, 471, 120(b), and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant's role, as stated by his counsel, was limited to transferring photographs to another person to avail GST benefits. The applicant argued that co-accused had been granted bail and that he would cooperate with the investigation and trial. The State opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the offence and a transaction chain involving Rs. 20 crores.

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered two primary factors: the prima facie case and the requirement for custodial interrogation. It noted that the applicant had no prior antecedents. The Court found the role attributed to the applicant, which was limited to transferring photographs for alleged GST benefits, not to be significant enough to warrant denial of bail. The Court also took into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in *Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre*, *Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia*, and *Sushila Aggarwal*. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions including cooperation with the investigation, appearance at the police station on a specified date, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, furnishing address, not leaving India without court permission, and depositing his passport. The Court also clarified that the Investigating Officer could file for remand, and the Magistrate would decide it without being influenced by the Court's observations, and that the applicant's right to oppose the remand application would be preserved. The trial court was also directed not to be influenced by the prima facie observations made in this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the role attributed to him and the facts of the case? 2. Whether the gravity of the alleged offence and the amount involved (Rs. 20 crores) warrant denial of anticipatory bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that his role was minimal, involving only the transfer of photographs for availing GST benefits. He highlighted that co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. The applicant, a law student, assured his availability for investigation and trial and willingness to abide by all conditions, including those related to remand. He relied on the principles laid down in *Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.* and *Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab*, and *Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)*. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the offence. The State pointed to a chain of transactions aimed at availing benefits of approximately Rs. 20 crores, arguing that discretion should not be exercised in favour of the applicant.