Gujarat court grants bail to suspended BJP leader Rakesh Solanki, aides in forgery case

The crime branch later alleged that the three men had forged the signature of Rajendra Patel, the BJP councillor from ward 1 in Surat, in a defamatory letter. Solanki and the others were arrested again on August 8 under section 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will etc), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record). They were produced before the Surat district court and sent to judicial custody that evening.

Arguing for the accused, defence lawyer K C PAnwala said, “The accused were rearrested under IPC section 465, 467, 468 and 471. It is submitted that the ingredients of sections 467 and 468 are not made at all in the present case, as there is no forgery of valuable security or no forgery for the purpose of cheating. The substantial investigation is over and all the… documentary evidences are already collected by the investigating agency, so further detention of the applicants/accused in the judicial custody would tantamount to pre-trial conviction and therefore present accused should be released on bail.”

District government pleader Nayan Sukhadwala, however, said, “Sections 467 and 468 of IPC are applicable or not is a subject of matter of challenge by filing revision application and the same cannot be raised in the bail application. The investigation is going on and is in a crucial stage, and the accused have social standing in society and by using their powers and authority they may hinder the investigations. The statements of concerned witnesses are recorded, and it is prima facie clearly established that the accused had committed offence. If the accused are released on bail, they may repeat the offence.”

After considering both arguments, Judge P S Dave of the 9th Additional Sessions Court stated, “After re-arresting of three accused, the investigation agency had not sought any police remand, which clearly shows that no custodial interrogation of accused is required in this case. The evidence which is documentary in nature is already collected by the agency and so there is no question of hampering or tampering with the evidence… further detention of the accused in judicial custody would tantamount to pre-trial conviction, as trial is likely to take substantial time.”

The order further adds, “Considering the role and nature of allegations, gravity of offence, the role attributed to the accused and without discussing the evidence in detail at this stage, and looking into the possibility of accused’s availability at the time of investigation and trial, this is an appropriate case to use discretionary power under section 439 of CrPC and release applicants on bail with certain conditions.”

The judge granted bail to all three on Thursday evening on a personal bond of Rs 25,000. The order adds that the accused have to report to the crime branch on the first and fifteenth of each month till the chargesheet is filed. Their passports have to be surrendered and the accused must not involve themselves in such offences again. Failure to comply will lead to automatic cancellation of bail.

Talking to The Indian Express, defense lawyer Panwala said, “We are very much satisfied with the court order as the judge accepted the points we raised.”

Sukhadwala said they will decide the further course of action on Monday.