Mohammad Sadik Gulab Shaikh vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. The Court considered the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 01.11.2018, the investigation qua the applicant is concluded, and the alleged offences occurred between 03.08.2018 and 04.09.2018. The Court noted the submission that the petitioner's only involvement was taking out a GST number in his name as an employee, with no further allegations. The Court also considered the parity with co-accused who have been granted bail. The Court found no special circumstances against the applicant presented by the prosecution. Relying on the principles laid down in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Court was of the opinion that it was a fit case to exercise discretion and enlarge the applicant on bail. The petitioner 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 not misusing liberty, not acting in a manner injurious to the prosecution, surrendering passport, not leaving Gujarat without permission, marking presence at the police station, and not changing residence without prior permission.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammad Sadik Gulab Shaikh, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The FIR was registered on 31.10.2018 at Mahidharpura Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The alleged offences occurred between 03.08.2018 and 04.09.2018. The petitioner has been in custody since 01.11.2018, and the investigation concerning him has concluded. The petitioner's contention is that he was merely an employee of the main accused and had only taken out a GST number in his name, with no other allegations against him. He also argued on the ground of parity with co-accused who have been enlarged on bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature of the alleged offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(B), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner's role as an employee who obtained a GST number. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his role was limited to obtaining a GST number in his name as an employee of the main accused, and there were no other allegations against him. He also contended that co-accused responsible for the business have been granted bail, and therefore, he should be granted bail on the ground of parity. The petitioner relied on the principles laid down in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation. Revenue's arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. However, the Investigating Officer was unable to bring any special circumstances against the applicant on record.