Gujarat High CourtShaileshgiri Mohangiri Meghnathi vs State Of Gujarat on 12 May, 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                                    ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022\n\n\n\n\n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6754 of 2022\n\n==========================================================\n                    SHAILESHGIRI MOHANGIRI MEGHNATHI\n                                  Versus\n                            STATE OF GUJARAT\n==========================================================\nAppearance:\nMR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1\nMR DIPAL R RAVAIYA(6532) for the Respondent(s) No. 1\nMR JK SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1\n==========================================================\n\nCORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA\n\n                                   Date : 12/05/2022\n\n                                    ORAL ORDER1.       Heard           Mr.A.J.   Yagnik,      learned   counsel        for      the\napplicant, Mr.J.K.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor\nfor the respondent - State and Mr.Nirad Buch, learned\ncounsel with Mr.Dipal R. Ravaiya, learned counsel for the\noriginal complainant.2.       By way of the present application filed underSection\n439of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-\naccused has prayed for bail in connection with the FIR\nbeing I-C.R.No.77 of 2018 registered with Junagadh "C"\nDivision Police Station, District - Junagadh for offences\npunishable under 406, 420, 120-B, 506(2) and 34 of theIPC.3.       As per the FIR, in sum and substance, the complainant\nintending to purchase the land bearing Survey No.141 Paiki,\nPlot No.36 admeasuring                    699 sq.mtrs. and Plot No.33\nadmeasuring 519 sq.mtrs.                        running in the name ofPage 1 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                                  ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022\n\n\n\nVarshaben Shaileshgiri Meghnathi and Jalpa Jayeshbhai\nGoswami. That Shaileshgiri Mohangiri Meghnathi - the\napplicant herein is a power of attorney holder of the said\nland. The complainant through one Harsukhbhai Tita met\nthe present applicant on 11.4.2018 and agreed to purchase\nthe said land for total consideration of Rs.2,44,00,000/- plus\nconveyance expenditure. On that day, as a token amount,\nRs.40 lakhs was agreed to be paid, out of which Rs.5 lakhs\nwas paid to the present applicant and Rs.35 lakhs was paid\nto Harsukhbhai Tita upon insistence of the applicant. The\nterm for payment was fixed as 9 months. The sale deed was\ndecided to be executed at Rs.87 lakhs as per the wish of the\npresent applicant. After about 3 months, when the applicant\nwas asked to execute the sale deed, at that time, the\napplicant had insisted the complainant to pay Rs.40 lakhs to\nHarsukhbhai Tita for settlement arrived at between the\napplicant       herein   and   Harsukhbhai           Tita,     for      which\nHarsukhbhai Tita had initiated FIR in the year 2006 which\nwas to be withdrawn by him upon receipt of the said\namount. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.40 lakhs to\nHarsukhbhai Tita, for which the applicant herein in his own\nhand-writing given the receipt.               Thereafter, on 18.8.2018,\nRs.6 lakhs in cash was paid to the present applicant for the\npurpose of conveyance expenditure. On 21.8.2018, the\napplicant asked Rs.77 lakhs in cash to be sent at his\nresidence and further asked to pay Rs.58 lakhs by way of\nRTGS and to give a cheque of Rs.29 lakhs which he shall\ndeposited after execution of the sale deed. Accordingly, on\n27.8.2018, first RTGS of Rs.29 lakhs made in account of\nNishant Meghnathi and second RTGS of Rs.29 lakhs was\nmade in the joint account of the present applicant and hisPage 2 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                                ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022\n\n\n\nwife and 3rd cheque of Rs.29 lakhs was given to the\napplicant. On 28.8.2018, as desired by the applicant, the\ncomplainant paid Rs.77 lakhs in cash at his residence. Thus,\nthe applicant after having received Rs.77 lakhs in cash and\nhaving        confirmed   two    RTGS,         went   along        with       the\ncomplainant to the office of the Registrar. However, the\nSub-Registrar asked to modify the sale deed. Thus, the\napplicant along with son of the complainant went for\nmodification of the said sale deed and at that time, the\napplicant had transferred Rs.30 lakhs cash to his brother\nNishant at Ahmedabad by way of Angadiya. Thereafter,\nwhile going back to Sub-Registrar's office, the applicant\nsomehow managed to escape and did not come to the Sub-\nRegistrar for execution of the sale deed. Thus, the present\ncomplaint came to be lodged.4.       It appears that after lodgment of the FIR in the year\n2018, the applicant remained absconder till his arrest on\n6.12.2021 i.e. almost for a period of 3 years. Therefore, the\nwarrant underSection 70of Cr.P.C. was also issued.5.       The Investigating Agency thereafter filed charge-sheet\nagainst the present applicant. The applicant, therefore,\napproached the Sessions Court by way of Criminal Misc.\nApplication No.112 of 2022. However, the District &\nSessions Judge, Junagadh vide order dated 10.3.2022\nrejected the said bail application.6.       Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the applicant is\nbefore this Court by way of present application for bail\nunder Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Page 3 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                                  ORDER DATED: 12/05/20227.       Mr.A.J. Yagnik, learned counsel appearing for the\napplicant has mainly submitted as under :(a)       The applicant has not committed any offence and\n       the entire matter is governed by civil law, since the\n       dispute involved is arising out of land transaction which\n       is civil in nature.(b)       The role of the present applicant is also not much\n       serious in nature as he was acting merely as a power of\n       attorney holder of the original owner of the suit\n       property.(c)       The genuity of the documents and validity\n       thereof       is   seriously      doubted     because      the      family\n       members of the applicant has not signed any document\n       as relied upon and those documents are forged and\n       fabricated at the instance of the complainant.(d)       The ingredients ofSection 406of the IPC are\n       absent and thereby, no offence is said to have been\n       committed by the present applicant.(e)       The entire issue revolves around non-execution\n       of the sale deed, for which the suit is also pending\n       before the court below and thereby, present FIR is\n       nothing but an abuse of process of law and filed with a\n       view to pressurize the applicant for the purpose of\n       execution of sale and thereby, Mr.Yagnik urged this\n       Court to grant regular bail to the present applicant.Page 4 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                                ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022(f)       The ingredients ofSection 420of IPC cannot be\n       attributed to the present applicant and, thereby entire\n       FIR is a tool used for arm twisting and thereby, the\n       present applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.(g)       The last but the main contention advanced by\n       Mr.Yagnik is that the applicant is a practicing advocate\n       and thereby, he is innocent and has nothing to do with\n       offences as alleged in the FIR.7.1      By making above submissions, Mr.Yagnik urged this\nCourt to grant the regular bail to the applicant on any\nsuitable conditions in the facts and circumstances of the\npresent case.8.       Mr.J.K.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,\nopposed           the present application by making following\nsubmissions :(1)       That the FIR was lodged in 2018. However, the\n       applicant         being   lawyer      having   legal     knowledge,\n       somehow he could managed and avoided his arrest for a\n       period of 3 years. The applicant was an absconder for a\n       period of approximately 3 years and against whom,\n       even the warrant underSection 70of Cr.P.C. was\n       issued and, therefore, Mr.Shah urged this Court not to\n       grant any indulgence to the present applicant.(2)       Mr.Shah heavily relied upon the Panchnama of\n       CCTV footage of Angadiya shop from which thePage 5 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                                       ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022\n\n\n\n  applicant alleged to have transferred a sum of Rs.30\n  lakhs in cash. Mr.Shah relying upon said Panchnama\n  stated that the allegations made in the FIR that the\n  applicant accused has transferred Rs.30 lakhs in cash to\n  his brother Nishant at Ahmedabad, gets corroboration\n  and      thereby,       prima     facie,       the   allegations          stand\n  substantiated.(3)       Mr.Shah further relied upon the statement of\n  Hansaben Ramnikbhai Dekiyawaliya dated 7.9.2018,\n  who was at the relevant point of time Sub-Registrar and\n  in whose presence, some deliberations took place\n  between           the   complainant           and    the    accused          and\n  thereafter, accused - applicant and the complainant\n  went away for modification of the sale deed document\n  and then, present applicant never returned. Mr.Shah\n  further submitted that in the statement, said Hansaben\n  Dekiyawaliya confirmed that present applicant was\n  carrying suitcase. Mr.Shah, thus, submitted that the\n  statement          of   the    Sub-Registrar         also    fortifies        the\n  allegations made in the FIR against the present\n  applicant.(4)       Mr.Shah further relied upon the statement of\n  Devan Kishorbhai Pandya dated 11.9.2018, who was\n  called       before      the     Sub-Registrar          office       by       the\n  complainant and further, he confirmed the fact that the\n  applicant was also present before the office of Sub-Registrar and thereafter, went for modification of the\n  sale deed document as per the direction of Sub-\n  Registrar Hansaben and never returned back forPage 6 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                                    ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022\n\n\n\n  execution of the sale deed and successfully escaped.\n  Mr.Shah submitted that the present witness is, in a\n  way, an independent witness and thereby, at this stage,\n  there is no reason to ignore and/or disbelieve the\n  version of his statement.(5)       Mr.Shah further relied upon the statement of\n  Bharatkumar         Shankarlal        Thakker,     who       is    running\n  Angadiya Pedhi at Ahmedabad. Said witness has\n  categorically stated that upon instructions from R.C.\n  Angadiya, Junagadh, Rs.30 lakhs cash was paid to\n  Nishant Meghnathi. Mr.Shah further relied upon the\n  statement of Tarun Natwar Kakkad dated 7.9.2018 who\n  is also running Angadiya Pedhi in the name of R.C.\n  Enterprise, who has stated that on instructions from the\n  present applicant, he has directed his branch at\n  Ahmedabad to pay Rs.30 lakhs to Nishant Meghnathi.\n  Relying upon these two statements of Angadiya Pedhi of\n  Junagadh and Ahmedabad, Mr.Shah submitted that\n  allegations        in   the     FIR      about     applicant         having\n  transferred Rs.30 lakhs to his brother Nishant at\n  Ahmedabad gets full-fledged corroboration and thereby,\n  at this stage, said statements of Angadiya Pedhi of\n  Junagadh          and   Ahmedabad,           who   are     independent\n  witnesses, cannot be ignored. Mr.Shah, therefore,\n  submitted that the applicant has received cash amount\n  as alleged in the FIR and in turn, also transferred to his\n  brother at Ahmedabad. Mr.Shah, therefore, submitted\n  that having received the amount and thereafter, no\n  executing the sale deed, would certainly fall within the\n  scope and ambit ofSections 406and420of IPC andPage 7 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                        ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022\n\n\n\n       thereby, the present applicant may not be enlarged on\n       regular bail.(6)       Mr.Shah further relied upon the RTGS entry of\n       Rs.58 lakhs as well as receipt issued by the applicant\n       for cash, which, according to Mr.Shah, fortified the fact\n       that the applicant has received huge amount in cash\n       and in cheque against the land in question and\n       thereafter, not executed the sale deed and thereby, it\n       amounts to clear case of criminal breach as well as\n       cheating.(7)       Mr.Shah also heavily relied upon the statement\n       of Harsukhbhai Tita dated 6.9.2018, wherein the\n       character and conduct of the present applicant is\n       narrated in detail and considering the statement, the\n       allegation made in the FIR is thoroughly substantiated\n       and gets full corroboration. Thus, at this stage, prima\n       facie case is made out against the present applicant and\n       thereby, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged\n       on regular bail.8.1      By making above submissions, Mr.Shah urged this\nCourt not to exercise discretion in favour of present\napplicant.9.       Mr.Nirad Buch, learned counsel for Mr.Dipal Ravaiya,\nlearned counsel appearing for the original complainant also\nopposed this bail application with all vehemence. Mr.Buch\nsubmitted that the present applicant being a lawyer is\nmisusing his legal knowledge and not acting befitting to thePage 8 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                          ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022\n\n\n\nstandard of lawyer. Mr.Buch submitted that the present\napplicant is habitual offender. Mr.Buch further submitted\nthat in past, as many as 5 FIRs are registered against the\npresent applicant. The details thereof are as under :"(1)     I-C.R.No.132 of 2006 underSections 406,465,467,471of IPC dated 19.5.2006.(2)      I-C.R.No.140 of 2006 underSections 406,465,467,384and511of IPC andSections 5,33and34of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act\n               dated 26.5.2006.(3)      I-C.R.No.148 of 2006 underSections 406,465,467,384and511of IPC andSections 5,33and34of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act\n               dated 10.6.2006.(4)      I-C.R.No.199 of 2006 underSections 406,465,467,384and511of IPC andSections 5,33and34of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act\n               dated 14.8.2006.(5)      I-C.R.No.203 of 2006 underSections 406,465,467,384and511of IPC andSections 5,33and34of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act\n               dated 21.8.2006."9.1    However, some of the FIRs said to have been settled\nand some are still pending against the present applicant,\nbut the fact remains that present applicant is in habit of\nindulging in offence like present one.9.2    Mr.Buch further submitted that the applicant was\ndeclared as absconder and warrant underSection 70of thePage 9 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                          ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022Cr.P.C. was issued as since more than 3 years, the applicant\nwas avoiding his arrest and thereby, if the applicant is\nenlarged on bail, in that case there are all chances that he\nwill tamper and/or hamper with the witnesses and would try\nto win over them.9.3   Mr.Buch further submitted that the present applicant\nbeing a lawyer, has designed preplanned conspiracy and\nobtained the trust of the complainant and thereby, obtained\nhuge amount towards the land in question. Learned counsel\nalso submitted that present accused has played major and\nactive role and the applicant is the master mind of entire\nconspiracy. Mr.Buch pointed out that initially, the very\napplicant has preferred quashing petition before this Court,\nhowever, same was withdrawn as this Court was not\ninclined to entertain the present application, having prima\nopinion that the case against the applicant is made out and\nthereby, Mr.Buch requested this Court not to exercise any\ndiscretion in favour of present applicant.9.4   Over and above, Mr.Buch adopted all the arguments\ncanvassed by Mr.Shah, learned APP and requested this\nCourt not to grant any indulgence and/or use any discretion\nin favour of present applicant.10.   I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the\nrespective parties and have also gone through the papers of\ninvestigation at length. No other and further submissions\nhave been canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the\nrespective parties, except what are stated herein-above.Page 10 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                           ORDER DATED: 12/05/202211.      Having considered the submissions canvassed by\nlearned counsel appearing for the respective parties and\nhaving perused the investigation papers, a short question\nthat falls for consideration of this Curt is whether in the\nfacts and circumstances of the case, the applicant, a lawyer\nby profession and a habitual offender, is entitled for regular\nbail ?12.      So as to decide the aforesaid question, it would be apt\nto refer to and rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in\nthe case ofKamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,\nreported in 2022 SCC Online 307. Inthe said decision, the\nApex Court has in Para.25 discussed the factors to be\nconsidered by the Court while granting the bail which\nreads, thus;"25. This Court has, on several occasions has\n         discussed the factors to be considered by a Court\n         while deciding a bail application. The primary\n         considerations which must be placed at balance while\n         deciding the grant of bail are: (i) the seriousness of\n         the offence; (ii) the likelihood of the accused fleeing\n         from justice; (iii) the impact of release of the accused\n         on the prosecution witnesses; (iv) likelihood of the\n         accused tampering with evidence. While such list is\n         not exhaustive, it may be stated that if a Court takes\n         into account such factors in deciding a bail\n         application, it could be concluded that the decision\n         has resulted from a judicious exercise of its\n         discretion, videGudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. vs.\n         Public Prosecutor, HighCourt of Andhra Pradesh\n         [(1978) 1 SCC 240] ;Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of\n         Delhi & Ors.[(2001) 4 SCC 280 ;Anil Kumar Yadav\n         vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2018) 12 SCC 129]."13.In another decision in the case ofY v. State of\nRajasthan & Anr., reported in 2022 SCC Online 458, the\nApex Court has in Para.8 and 9 observed as under :Page 11 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                            ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022\n\n\n\n     "8.   This Court has, in a catena of judgments,\n     outlined the considerations on the basis of which\n     discretion underSection 439, CrPC has to be\n     exercised while granting bail. In Gurcharan Singh v.State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 this\n     Court has held as to the various parameters which\n     must be considered while granting bail. This Court\n     held as follows:24. Even so, the High Court or the Court of\n               Session will have to exercise its judicial\n               discretion in considering the question of\n               granting of bail underSection 439(1)CrPC of\n               the new Code. The overriding considerations in\n               granting bail to which we adverted to earlier\n               and which are common both in the case of\n               Section 437(1) andSection 439(1)CrPC of the\n               new Code are the nature and gravity of the\n               circumstances in which the offence is\n               committed; the position and the status of the\n               accused with reference to the victim and the\n               witnesses; the likelihood, of the accused fleeing\n               from justice; of repeating the offence; of\n               jeopardising his own life being faced with a\n               grim prospect of possible conviction in the\n               case; of tampering with witnesses; the history\n               of the case as well as of its investigation and\n               other relevant grounds which, in view of so\n               many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively\n               set out.9. The above factors do not constitute an exhaustive\n     list. The grant of bail requires the consideration of\n     various factors which ultimately depends upon the\n     specific facts and circumstances of the case before\n     the Court. There is no strait jacket formula which can\n     ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors\n     could be. However, certain important factors that are\n     always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie\n     involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the\n     charge, severity of the punishment, and the\n     character, position and standing of the accused [see\n     State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC\n     21]."Page 12 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                             ORDER DATED: 12/05/202214.   Yet in another decision in the case ofJagjeet Singh &\nOthers v. Ashish Mishraalias Monu & Anr., reported in\n2022 SCC Online 453, the Apex Court has held in Para.30 as\nunder :"30. It will be beneficial at this stage to recapitulate\n       the principles that a Court must bear in mind while\n       deciding an application for grant of bail. This Court in\n       the case ofPrasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis\n       Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 after taking\n       into account several precedents, elucidated the\n       following:9. However, it is equally incumbent upon the\n                 High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously,\n                 cautiously and strictly in compliance with the\n                 basic principleslaid down ina plethora of\n                 decisions of this Court on the point. It is well\n                 settled that, among other circumstances, the\n                 factors to be borne in mind while considering\n                 an application for bail are:(i) whether there is any prima facie or\n                 reasonable ground to believe that the accused\n                 had committed the offence;(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of\n                 conviction;(iv) danger of the accused absconding or\n                 fleeing, if released on bail;(v) character, behaviour, means, position and\n                 standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses\n                 being influenced; andPage 13 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                               ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022(viii) danger, of course,        of   justice        being\n                 thwarted by grant of bail.(Emphasis Supplied)"15.    Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal enunciation, the\nsalient facts emanating from the investigation papers, can\nbe stated as under :(i)     This is a case in which a legal brain i.e. the\n      applicant being an Advocate involved as the main\n      accused.(ii)    It appears that the applicant being an Advocate\n      well-versed with the nitty-gritty of the legal provisions\n      and the procedure and thereby, appears to have evaded\n      his arrest for almost 3 years.(iii)   The accused successfully remained absconder for\n      almost 3 years, for which a warrant underSection 70of\n      the Cr.P.C. was to be issued.(iv)    From the investigation papers, prima facie, it is\n      established that the accused had promised and/or\n      agreed to sell the land in question to the complainant\n      for an amount of Rs.2,44,00,000/-, out of which Rs.58\n      lakhs came to be received in two accounts i.e. (i) his\n      son's account and (ii) in the joint account of applicant\n      and his wife. Over and above that, the amount in cash\n      also seems to have been received, for which various\n      statements of independent witnesses are also there on\n      record along with documentary evidence of cash receiptPage 14 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                                 ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022\n\n\n\n      by the applicant.(v)     Admittedly, the sale transaction was for the\n      purpose of the land in question, however, till today, no\n      sale deed came to be executed.(vi)    Another     important       witness      i.e.     Hansaben\n      Ramniklal Dekiwaliya , who is the Sub-Registrar and\n      whose statement also confirms that the complainant\n      and the accused had come to Sub-Registrar's office for\n      the purpose of execution of sale deed and thereafter,\n      because of some modification in the sale deed, they\n      went outside the Registrar's office and thereafter, the\n      applicant never returned. The said statement fortifies\n      the fact that the applicant was to execute the sale deed,\n      for which he had received the amount by way of cheque\n      as well as in cash.(vii)   It also transpires that the present applicant has\n      as many as 6 FIRs lodged for more or less similar\n      offences. It is stated that many of those FIRs are settled\n      and/or quashed. Be that as it may, the fact remains that\n      the applicant has tainted history.16.    In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, at\nthe outset, it requires to be noted that the present applicant\nbeing a lawyer by profession, is oftenly involved in the\noffence serious in nature which itself is a matter of shame.\nThe profession of a lawyer is a noble profession, as it has\ndirect nexus with pious stream of justice which at any cost\nshall not be allowed to be polluted. It is highly unexpectedPage 15 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                       ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022\n\n\n\nfrom a lawyer to have indulged in such an offence not once,\nbut several times in past. Though some offences are settled,\nbut the fact remains that the offences took place at the\ninstance of the applicant. Thus, the conduct of the applicant\nseems to be not befitting to the standard of the profession.\nAdmittedly, in the present case, as stated herein-above, the\napplicant has received the amount in cash as well as by\ncheque towards the consideration of sale of land and\ndespite receiving huge amount, the applicant has not\nexecuted the sale deed and eloped for a period of almost 3\nyears. In my opinion, prima facie, offences underSections\n406and420of the IPC are made out against the applicant.17.   Keeping in mind the observations of the Apex Court in\nthe case ofKamla Devi(Supra), wherein the Apex Court has\ndiscussed the factors to be considered by a Court while\ndeciding the bail application. In my view, the seriousness of\noffence is made out because the applicant is a lawyer by\nprofession; the likelihood of accused fleeing from justice is\nalso apprehendable as the applicant was absconder for\nalmost 3 years for which warrant underSection 70of the\nCr.P.C. was to be issued; chances of influencing the\nwitnesses are also bright considering the position and status\nof the applicant as a lawyer. Even the past of the applicant\nsuggests that majority FIRs filed against the present\napplicant got settled and then, quashed. Therefore, there is\njustifiable apprehension that if the applicant is released on\nbail, the applicant will influence and/or win over the\nwitnesses.18.   In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my consideredPage 16 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/6754/2022                      ORDER DATED: 12/05/2022\n\n\n\nopinion, the present application is bereft of any merits and\nthe applicant does not deserve any sympathy as he being a\nlawyer repeatedly indulging into criminal activities and\nthereby, is not entitled to be released on bail. I answer the\nquestion accordingly.19.    For the foregoing reasons, present application is not\nentertained and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)\nV.J. SATWARAPage 17 of 17Downloaded on : Thu May 12 20:44:21 IST 2022