Shardaben Alpeshkumar Kanani vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the primary allegation against the applicant was changing the nature of the loan amount due to the non-production of a relevant certificate regarding machinery installation. However, it was observed that it is the concerned bank authority's responsibility to verify facts and conduct necessary inspections before sanctioning loans. The Court also took into account the applicant's willingness to repay the entire outstanding amount. Considering the facts, the nature of allegations, and the gravity of the offence, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The Court relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab. 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, presence at the police station on a specified date, not inducing or threatening witnesses, not obstructing the investigation, furnishing address and not changing residence, and not leaving India without court permission. The trial court was directed not to be influenced by the prima facie observations made in this order.

Facts

The petitioner, Shardaben Alpeshkumar Kanani, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with FIR No. 11201016200004 of 2020, registered with CID Crime Surat Zone Police Station for offences including cheating and forgery. The FIR alleged that the applicant and 42 others, including 26 women, conspired to forge documents to obtain government scheme loans, misused the loan amounts, and failed to repay them. The applicant contended that loans were sanctioned based on bank reports and spot inspections, and that loan documents were filed by consultants in collaboration with bank officials, negating any intention to siphon funds. The applicant expressed willingness to repay the outstanding amount. The State argued that the applicant received a loan for machinery but failed to produce installation certificates, submitted bogus quotations, and provided no details of machinery installation. The State also noted that the investigation was ongoing to ascertain if GST had been paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of conspiracy, forgery, cheating, and misuse of loan amounts, and the ongoing investigation into potential GST non-payment? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the allegations of changing the nature of the loan were baseless as loans were sanctioned based on bank reports and spot inspections. She contended that loan documents were filed by consultants in conjunction with bank officials, indicating no intent to siphon funds. The applicant also stated her readiness to repay the entire outstanding amount, urging the court to exercise discretion in her favour. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that the applicant received a loan for machinery but failed to provide necessary installation certificates and submitted bogus quotation letters. They asserted that the applicant signed all loan papers, implying knowledge of the documents, and that the investigation was ongoing to determine if GST had been paid. The State prayed that no discretion be exercised in the applicant's favour.