Dilipbhai Jethalal Chauhan vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court considered the nature of the alleged offences, the fact that the FIR stemmed from a partnership dispute, and the applicant's undertaking to clear PF/ESI and GST dues. The Court also took into account the submissions of the applicant's counsel and the lack of special circumstances presented by the State. Relying on the precedents of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and others, the Court found it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. The Court directed that the applicant 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, marking presence at the police station, not tampering with evidence, and furnishing his address. Crucially, the applicant was directed to clear PF/ESI dues up to September 2019 and GST dues from October 2018 to September 2019 for M/s. Spire Enterprise, subject to the final settlement of accounts between the partners. An undertaking to this effect was to be filed within one week. The Court also clarified that the Investigating Officer could apply for remand, and the Magistrate would decide on merits, with the applicant's right to oppose such applications preserved. The Trial Court was cautioned not to be influenced by the Court's prima facie observations.

Facts

The applicant, Dilipbhai Jethalal Chauhan, filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bail was sought in connection with FIR registered at C.R. No.I-432 of 2019 with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered on September 8, 2019, concerning alleged offences from October 2018 to the date of registration. The applicant contended that the FIR arose from an internal account dispute between partners who had a government contract. The complainant alleged that the applicant received a large contract amount in a separate account but failed to pay government dues. The applicant offered to clear PF/ESI and GST dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature of the alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and the facts of the case? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the FIR was a result of an internal account dispute between partners. He claimed to have legitimately opened an account and deposited money in the partnership firm's name, with the complainant's knowledge. The applicant also stated his willingness to clear all PF/ESI and GST dues within a specified period. He relied on the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and others regarding anticipatory bail. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent-State, through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the application, citing the nature and gravity of the offences. However, the APP, under instructions, was unable to bring any special circumstances against the applicant on record.