Ashokkumar Ranjitmal Purohit vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court considered the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicant, and the investigation papers. It was noted that the FIR was registered for offences alleged to have occurred between October 2016 and June 2019. The Court also took into account the applicant's submission that the FIR was a consequence of company account settlements and a repetition of a prior FIR in Mumbai, where witnesses had testified in his favour. Crucially, the Court observed that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, under instructions from the Investigating Officer, was unable to present any special circumstances against the applicant. The Court relied on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and others. The Court granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, presence at the police station on a specified date, not inducing witnesses, not obstructing investigation, furnishing address, marking presence fortnightly, not leaving India without permission, and depositing his passport. The Court also clarified that the Investigating Agency could apply for remand, and the Magistrate would decide on merits, without prejudice to the applicant's right to oppose such an application.

Facts

This matter concerns a criminal miscellaneous application filed by Ashokkumar Ranjitmal Purohit under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail. The applicant sought bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR registered at C.R. No.I-259 of 2019 with Puna Police Station, Surat, for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered on June 26, 2019, alleging offences that occurred between October 2016 and June 2019. The complainant alleged questionable transactions, including non-payment of GST on goods sold, and claimed the applicant had a similar modus operandi with other individuals across India. The applicant contended that the FIR was a result of company account settlements and a repetition of a previous FIR registered in Mumbai for similar transactions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that considering the nature of the offence, he should be enlarged on anticipatory bail with suitable conditions. He further submitted that the present FIR is an outcome of the settlement of accounts of the company and is merely a repetition of a previous FIR registered in Mumbai for the same period and similar transactions, where witnesses had deposed in his favour. The applicant also stated his willingness to abide by all conditions, including those related to the Investigating Agency's power to seek remand. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent-State opposed the application, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. The complainant's counsel submitted that questionable transactions, including non-payment of GST, were involved, and the applicant had a similar modus operandi with other individuals across India.