Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10363/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10363 of 2011
=========================================================
ATULBHAI
H DAVE - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
GAYATRI B JADEJA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
Ms.Manisha L Shah, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 21/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Learned APP Ms.Manisha L Shah waives service of notice notice of Rule
for respondent-State.
2. This
application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with First Information Report registered at
C.R.No.I-48 of 2011 with Veraval Police Station, District Junagadh
for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 418, 465, 467,
468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned
counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is accused of
offences punishable and triable by learned Magistrate and at the
outset, prima facie it appears to be a case of temporary
misappropriation and the total amount of Rs.55,622.48 ps. alleged to
have been misappropriated is already deposited. The applicant is
having above twenty years of service and by and large, the service
record of the applicant is good and is not likely to abscond and
having permanent residence etc. It is further submitted that in view
of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Heard
learned APP for the respondent-State.
5. Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the
case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. This Court has
also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V. State of Maharashtra &
Ors. Reported in (2011)1 SCC 694, wherein the Apex Court reiterated
the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Reported in (1980)2 SCC 565.
6. Learned
counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
7. In
the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the
event of the applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being
C.R.No.I-48 of 2011 registered with Veraval Police Station, Junagadh,
the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of like amount
on following conditions:
a) shall
cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for
interrogation.
b) shall
remain present at the concerned Police Station on 28.7.2011 between
11.00 am to 2.00 pm.
c) shall
not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so
as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
Police Officer.
d) shall
at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the
Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change
the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further
orders.
e) will
not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is
holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court
immediately.
f) It
would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for
remand, if he considers it just and proper and the concerned
Magistrate would decide on merits.
g) despite
this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to
the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The
applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the
first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent
occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would
be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the
purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police
remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the
accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if ultimately
granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a
request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant,
even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such
period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to
other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
8. At
the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the
observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage,
made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
9. Rule
made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service
is permitted.
(
Anant S Dave, J )
srilatha
Top