Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Gujarat · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3849 (GUJ)

SIJISH SHANKARAN PUTHUSHERIMAL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

CR.MA/10412/2025 · 2025-06-09

M R Mengdey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

R/CR.MA/10412/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 10412 of 2025 ========================================================== SIJISH SHANKARAN PUTHUSHERIMAL & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance: MR NIRAV C SANGHAVI(5950) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 09/06/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent State. 2. The Applicants has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the Applicants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11215002241193 of 2024 registered with Anand Town Police Station, Anand. 3. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicants and learned APP for the Respondent – State. 4. Learned Advocate for the Applicants has submitted that the Applicants have good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicants in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail. Page 1 of 4 R/CR.MA/10412/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025 5. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail interalia contending that the applicants are having several other antecedents. The applicants are not local residents rather they belongs to State of Karnataka, therefore their presence cannot be secured for the purpose of trial. He therefore requested, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants and the application may be dismissed. 6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. As per the case of prosecution, the applicants herein had floated a company and collected an amount of Rs.18,40,000/- from the first informant under the pretext of providing him with a visa to United Kingdom and securing a job over there. However, after having received the said amount, no visa or any job was made available to the first informant. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, the application deserves consideration. 7. This court has considered the following aspects: (a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicants accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused. (b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicants has submitted that the Applicants Accused are not likely to flee away. (c) That the Applicants are in custody since 11.02.2025. (d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40. 8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the R/CR.MA/10412/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025 case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation, availability of the Applicants Accused at the time of Trial etc. and the role attributed to the present Applicants accused, the present Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. This Court has also gone through the FIR and police papers and also the earlier order passed by the learned Sessions Court where the learned Sessions Judge has disallowed the bail Application at initial stage. The Applicants Accused are ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that they shall: (a) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. (b) maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities. (c) furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of their residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of the trial Court. (d) provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to the trial Court. (e) file an affidavit stating his immovable properties whether self acquired or ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before the Trial Court, if any. (f) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.. (g) not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court; (h) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week. If the R/CR.MA/10412/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025 Applicants does not possess passport, they shall file an Affidavit to that effect. 9. Bail bond to be executed before the Trial Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It would be open for the Trial Court concerned to give time to furnish the solvency certificate if prayed for. 10. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Trial Court concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action according to law. The Authorities will release the Applicants forthwith only if the Applicants are not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. 11. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 12. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted. (M. R. MENGDEY,J) Radhika Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: RADHIKA ABHILASH(HCD0042), Steno Gr II, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/06/2025 19:05:15