Labhuben Kiranbhai Miyani vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Labhuben Kiranbhai Miyani, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with FIR No. 11201016200005 dated 29.09.2020, registered with CID Crime Surat Zone Police Station for offences including cheating and forgery. The applicant was accused No. 5. She had obtained a term loan of Rs. 23,45,000/- on 26.03.2018, with monthly installments of Rs. 33,985.50 for 72 months. She had repaid Rs. 16,33,655.60 with interest, and Rs. 9,59,721.28 remained outstanding. The applicant argued that no specific allegations were made against her, and she had not forged any documents. She also contended that the GST payment obligation lay with the machinery supplier. The applicant is a 40-year-old lady residing in a joint family with no prior criminal antecedents. The branch manager, who was granted anticipatory bail, was cited as a ground for parity.

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the facts of the case, noting that the loan amount was prayed for as per bank terms and that post-inspection and pre-inspection were to be conducted by bank authorities. The Court also took into account that the applicant had been paying installments and was willing to pay the remaining amount as per the terms and conditions of the bank. The Court referred to landmark judgments of the Apex Court on anticipatory bail, including Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia, and Sushila Aggarwal. The Court found the application required consideration and was inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions including cooperation with the investigation, availability for interrogation, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without permission. The trial court was directed not to be influenced by the prima facie observations made by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of offences under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and the specific role attributed to her in obtaining a bank loan through alleged forged documents and circular transactions. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that no specific allegations were made against her, and she had not forged any documents. She contended that Section 409 of the IPC was not applicable as she was not a banker, merchant, or agent. She also argued that the responsibility for depositing GST lay with the machinery supplier. The applicant highlighted her age, family background, lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that the bank manager involved had been granted anticipatory bail on parity. She emphasized that she was repaying the loan as per the terms. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. The State contended that the applicant, along with other accused, engaged in circular transactions and procured the loan by producing forged documents and bogus quotations. The State pointed to the post and pre-inspection being conducted by a single bank authority, suggesting connivance.