| Case Name : | Satyajit Ballulbhai Desai and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (2015) CCR 321(SC) |
| Referred Judgements : | STATE REP VS. N M T JOY IMMACULATE[REFERRED TO]JAIRAJSINGH TEMUBHA JADEJA VS. STATE OFGUJARAT [REFERRED TO] |
| Date of judgement : | October 07, 2011 |
| Court : | Highcourt of Gujarat |
| Case Type : | CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION |
| Appellant : | SATYAJIT BALLULBHAI DESAI & ORS. |
| Respondents : | STATE OF GUJRAT |
| Issue / Query : | The offences are punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. |
Facts-
The case involves an appeal filed by Satyajit Ballulbhai Desai and others against the State of Gujarat.
The appellants challenged the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated September 29, 2011.
The High Court had dismissed the applications filed by the appellants and upheld the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
The order permitted the police remand of the appellants for three days for their interrogation in complaint case No. 3/2004.
The complaint was initially filed by Surjaben, the widow of Badharsinh @ Babarsinh Chauhan, before the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) in Valod, Gujarat.
Surjaben alleged that a forged power of attorney was created by Satyajitbhai Ballulbhai Desai, enabling the execution of a registered sale deed without her knowledge.
The complaint was registered as Talod M. Case No. 1/2004 and subsequently referred to the police for investigation.
Alongside the criminal complaint, Surjaben also filed a civil suit against Satyajit Ballulbhai Desai for various reliefs, including declaration, permanent injunction, and cancellation of the registered sale deed.
A compromise was reached between Satyajit Ballulbhai Desai and Surjaben in the civil suit, resulting in the withdrawal of the criminal complaint.
However, a third person named Randhirsing Deepsing Parmar, who was not directly involved in the dispute, challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate to return the complaint.
The appellants, in this case, sought to challenge the order of police remand based on the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of the complaint and the compromise reached in the civil suit.
The appellants, being dissatisfied with the order of the High Court upholding the police remand, approached the Supreme Court challenging the order on the grounds that the reasons provided by the investigating agency for seeking police remand were not valid or justifiable.
The appellants argued that police remand should only be granted in exceptional cases and when there is a strong justification for taking custody of the accused for further investigation. They contended that they had fully cooperated with the investigating authority, appeared for questioning as required after being granted regular bail, and had not tried to hinder the investigation in any way.
The appellants asserted that the grant of police remand in their case encroached upon their personal liberty, and the investigating agency failed to present a compelling case warranting police custody.
It was highlighted that a compromise had been reached between the appellants and the complainant in the civil suit, resulting in the withdrawal of the criminal complaint. However, the complaint was revived by the order of the High Court, and subsequently, the investigating agency sought police remand based on the revived complaint.
The appellants argued that the involvement of a third party, Randhirsing Deepsing Parmar, who was a stranger to the dispute, led to the investigation being initiated at his instance, which further complicated the matter.
The appellants contended that considering their cooperation and compliance with the investigation, there was no justification for subjecting them to police remand merely for the purpose of conducting further investigation.
In their appeal, the appellants sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to set aside the order granting police remand and safeguard their personal liberty.
Issue-
The offences are punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Arguments-
The applicants contended that the FIR was lodged with the ulterior motive of harassing them and to pressurize them to withdraw their claim over the property. They further submitted that the allegations levelled against them were false and baseless.
The respondent, Randhirsinh Dipsinh Parmar, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants and submitted that they had committed serious offences.
Prayed –
The applicants had prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR registered against them under Sections 323, 504, 506, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Judgement –
The magistrate granted anticipatory bail to the applicants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants were seeking protection of their liberty and freedom due to persistent harassment and misuse of machinery of the law by Randhirsinh Dipsinh Parmar. The bail was granted with suitable conditions imposed.
Conclusion –
. The case involves an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with a First Information Report registered as M. Case No. 1/2004 with Valod Police Station, Surat Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants contended that they were being harassed by one Randhirsinh Dipsinh Parmar and that the allegations levelled against them were false and baseless. The court, after hearing both sides and perusing the record of the case, granted anticipatory bail to the applicants by imposing suitable conditions. The court also considered the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Stalingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra reported in [2011] 1 SCC.
written by Mrugen Dhage intern under legal vidhiya
