Sureshkumar Chhitarmalji Jain vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court considered that the applicant had cooperated with the investigating agency, and his statement recorded on January 21, 2019, explained the transaction. It was noted that the original accused misused his GST number, and the applicant received Rs. 12,00,000/- in cash from the co-accused, from which payment was made to the complainant. The Court also noted that the applicant had no prior antecedents. Therefore, custodial interrogation was deemed not required. The Court relied on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab. The application was allowed, and 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 on specific dates, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without permission. The Court also clarified that the Investigating Officer could file an application for remand, which the Magistrate would decide on merits.

Facts

The applicant, Sureshkuamr Chhitarmalji Jain, filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail. This application was in connection with FIR C.R. No. I–110/2018, registered at Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offenses under Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The State of Gujarat opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant contended that custodial interrogation was not necessary and that he would cooperate with the investigation and trial. The FIR alleged that co-accused Pankajkumar Ramniwas Agrawal misused his GST Number to obtain goods from the complainant, and paid Rs. 12,00,000/- in cash to the applicant, from which payment was made to the complainant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, and the nature of the offenses under Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the IPC? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage and that he would fully cooperate with the investigation and trial. He was willing to abide by all conditions, including those related to remand proceedings, and sought to preserve his right to oppose any remand application on merits. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offenses.