Patel Ajaybhai Dahyabhai vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on several factors: the petitioner's willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the fact that co-accused who were beneficiaries had already paid the GST amount and were released on bail, and the lack of proactive steps by the investigating officer to interrogate the applicant despite the Court's earlier order. The Court also considered the law laid down by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. The operative directions included releasing the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety, with conditions such as cooperating with the investigation, appearing before the police station on a specified date, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, providing his address, not leaving India without court permission, and depositing his passport. The Court also clarified that the Investigating Officer could apply for police remand, which the Magistrate would decide on merits, and that the trial court should not be influenced by the prima facie observations made in this order.

Facts

The petitioner, Patel Ajaybhai Dahyabhai, filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail. The FIR was registered at C.R. No. I-128 of 2018 with Unjha Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner argued that custodial interrogation was not necessary and he would cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail application due to the nature and gravity of the offences. The Court noted that co-accused who were beneficiaries had already paid GST and were released on bail. The Court also observed that the investigating officer had not summoned the applicant for interrogation despite permission granted by the Court.

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, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage and that he would be available for the investigation and would not flee from justice. He also expressed willingness to abide by all conditions, including those related to the investigating agency's power to seek remand, while reserving his right to oppose such applications on merits. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offences.