Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2226/2010 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2226 of
2010
=========================================================
ANILBHAI
KANTIBHAI PANCHANI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
DHARMESH
D NANAVATY for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR. D C SEJPAL, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 19/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
is an application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 by the applicant for regular bail, who has been
arrested, in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. I-106 of
2008 with Tarapur Police Station for the offence punishable under
Sections 392 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned
advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an
innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged
offence punishable under Sections 392 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code. He further submitted that considering the role attributed to
the applicant as reflected in F.I.R. at Annexure-A to the application
and since the similarly situated accused have already been released
by this Court (CORAM: HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI) vide
order dated 20.02.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 137
of 2009, the applicant even, on the ground of parity, deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
3. Learned
A.P.P. Mr. D.C. Sejpal, representing the State, while opposing the
bail application, submitted that the applicant is involved in a
serious offence punishable under Sections 392 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that considering the
role attributed to the applicant and the manner in which the offence
is committed by him along with other accused, no discretionary relief
be granted to the applicant and the application deserves to be
dismissed.
4. I
have heard learned advocate Mr. Dharmesh D. Nanavaty appearing for
the applicant and learned A.P.P. Mr. D.C. Sejpal appearing for the
State at length and in great detail. I have considered the rival
submissions, averments made in the application, role attributed to
the applicant which is reflected in F.I.R. at Annexure-A to the
application, provisions of Sections 392 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, quantum of punishment, police papers, gravity of offence etc.
and the fact that the similarly situated accused have already been
enlarged on bail by this Court (CORAM: HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
KUMARI) vide order dated 20.02.2009 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 137 of 2009, I am of the view that the present
applicant also deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed
and the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection
with C.R. No. I-106 of 2008 registered at Tarapur Police Station on
executing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with one
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and
subject to the conditions that he shall:
(a) not
take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;
(b) not
act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
(c) surrender
his passport, if any, to the lower court within a week.
(d) not
leave the State of Gujarat without the prior permission of the
Sessions Court concerned;
(e) mark
his presence at Tarapur Police Station on any day of every first
week of English calendar month between 9.00 AM and 2.00 PM. till
the trial is over;
(f) furnish
the present address of his residence to the I.O. and also to the
Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change
his residence without prior permission of this Court;
(g) maintain
law and order.
6. If
breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions
Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or to take appropriate
action in the matter.
7. Bail
bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try
the case.
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
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is
permitted.
(H.B.ANTANI,J.)
Shekhar
Top