Sureshchandra Ramanlal Mehta vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

State of Gujarat and another ... Respondents

JUDGMENT

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal is directed against judgment

dated August 10, 2007 rendered by the learned

single Judge of High Court of Gujarat at

Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application

No. 6590 of 2007 by which the prayer made by the 2 appellant to enlarge him on anticipatory bail with

reference to Crime Case No. 1681 of 2002,

registered with Navrangpura Police Station,

Ahmedabad, for alleged commission of offences

punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 439,

471, 473(a) and 120B of IPC read with Section 46 of

the Banking Regulation Act, is refused.

3. The record shows that in the year 2002 an FIR was

lodged against the appellant and 13 other co-

accused for alleged commission of offences

punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 439,

471, 473(a), 120B of IPC and Section 46 of the

Banking Regulation Act. The appellant had

approached the High Court for anticipatory bail but

the same was disposed of as withdrawn by an order

dated January 22, 2004. The appellant again

preferred another application for obtaining

anticipatory bail. The High Court rejected the same

on the ground that though the previous application 3 for anticipatory bail was disposed of on January 22,

2004, the appellant had neither surrendered before

the Investigating Officer nor extended cooperation

in the investigation, as a result of which the

investigating agency had initiated proceedings

against the appellant under Section 70 and 82 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to

the High Court the appellant had no regard for law

and, therefore, his prayer for anticipatory bail was

liable to be rejected though he had pleaded his

illness. In that view of the matter, the High Court

has rejected the application for anticipatory bail

giving rise to the instant appeal.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the

parties and considered the documents forming part

of the instant appeal. The appellant has pleaded

that as he is aged about 75 years and suffering

from various ailments, the anticipatory bail should

be granted to him.

4

5. During the course of hearing of the instant appeal

the State was directed to submit a report on the

health of the appellant. Accordingly the State has

submitted report dated May 10, 2008 submitted by

Dr. V.K. Gautam (MS Ortho), Department of

Orthopedic Surgery, B.J. Medical College, Civil

Hospital, Asarwa, Ahmedabad, relating to the

health of the appellant. As per the said report the

appellant is diagnosed case of Lumbar Canal

Stenosis with severe Lumber Sodalities of L2-3-4

and L5S1. According to the said report he has

severe Osteoarthritis below knee and deformities at

knee. The report further states that the appellant

has sustained fracture of ankle for which he has

been operated and metal implants are found in his

body. The report shows that the appellant is known

heavy diabetic on oral anti-diabetic drugs and has

hypoesthesia below D12-L1 and Anesthesia below

L-3 due to Lumber Canal stenosis and diabetic

neuropathy. What is relevant to notice is that as 5 per the said report the appellant is severely obese

weighing 120 kgs. and he is not able to do his

activities of daily living without at least two

assistants. It is also mentioned in the report that

he is absolutely bedridden due to severe

osteoarthritis below knee, Lumber Canal Stenosis,

Osteoporosis, diabetic and obesity and that he

needs special toilet and bathroom. It is highlighted

in the said report that he has danger of having

bedsores, pressure sores without specialized

treatment and if left untreated, the diseases may

lead to his death. According to Dr. Gautam,

prognosis is not going to improve further due to

increasing age and servile changes.

6. The record would indicate that there are as many as

49 accused, who were arrested and each one of

them has already been enlarged on bail. The

chairman, vice-chairman, managing director, 11

other directors, two general managers, accountant 6 and as many as 30 loanees of the bank have been

enlarged on bail. The appellant, at the relevant

time, was ex-vice chairman of the Bank and he had

resigned in the year 1999 due to his deteriorating

health.

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

and, more particularly, having regard to the health

of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that

interest of justice would be served if the appellant is

enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to certain

conditions.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds.

The appellant is enlarged on anticipatory bail with

reference to Crime Case No. 1681 of 2002 registered

with Navrangpura Police Station at Ahmedabad for

the commission of offences punishable under

Sections 406, 409, 420, 439, 471, 473(a), 120B of

IPC and Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act

on his depositing a sum of Rs.40 lacs with the 7 respondent No. 2, i.e., Sabarmati Cooperative Bank

(in liquidation). It would be open to the appellant to

deposit the abovementioned amount in four equal

monthly instalments first of which would be

deposited by May 23, 2008. The appellant shall

make himself available for interrogation by police

officer as and when required. The appellant shall

not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from

disclosing such facts to the court or to any police

officer. The appellant shall not leave India without

the previous permission of the High Court.

9. If the appellant is arrested without warrant by an

officer in charge of Navrangpura Police Station and

is prepared to give bail he shall be released on bail

in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with like surety for the

same amount. It would, thereafter, be open to the

appellant to apply for regular bail under Section 8 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the

court hearing such an application shall decide the

same on merits without being influenced by the fact

that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the

appellant.

10. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

hereinabove.

..............................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

..............................J. [J.M. Panchal] New Delhi;

May 15, 2008.