Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4460/2010 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4460 of 2010
=========================================
JAYSHRIBEN
W/O NITINKUMAR RAMJIBHAI JOSHI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARSHIT S TOLIA for Applicant(s) : 1,MR PARTH S TOLIA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MS MINI NAIR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR PY DIVYESHVAR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 15/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case and by consent of both the sides,
this matter is taken up for hearing today.
This is an
application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in connection with the FIR bearing CR No. I 1
of 2010 registered with CID Crimes, Rajkot Zone Police Station, for
the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code.
Learned
advocate Mr. Tolia for the applicant submitted that present applicant
has been arraigned wrongly in the offence alleged against him. He
also submitted that there is no prima facie case against the present
applicant and even though, concocted allegations have been levelled
against him and none of the ingredients of the offence are made out
in the present case. The FIR is filed after a period of 1 year and 9
months after great deliberation. He also submitted that Sections 406
an 420 of Indian Penal Code cannot stand together and the ingredients
of the offences alleged in the FIR are not made out and attracted the
applicant. Even the affidavit filed by the witness which is on
record, to show that looking to the ingredients of Section 415 and
405 prima faciely, not shows that the applicant has committed any
offence. He also contended that there is nothing on record regarding
involvement of the applicant in the commission of the offence. In
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is a
fit case to release the present applicant on anticipatory bail.
Learned
advocate Mr. Parth Divyeshwar appearing on behalf of the complainant
strongly opposed the application and prayed to reject the application
of the applicant.
Ms. Nair,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State also
opposed the application and contended that considering the role
attributed to the applicant which is reflected in the FIR at
Annexure-A to the application and the nature of offences in which the
applicant is involved as well as the manner in which the offences are
committed by the applicant, the application deserves to be rejected.
I have perused
the FIR and papers as well as statement of witness and from the
record, it appears that there is no direct evidence against the
applicant for the commission of the offence, and therefore, it is a
fit case to grant anticipatory bail and therefore, in view of the
above facts and circumstances of the case and without entering into
merits of the case, this Court is inclined to exercise discretion in
favour of the applicant.
In the event
of arrest of the applicant in connection with CR No. I 1 of 2010
registered with CID Crimes, Rajkot Zone Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code , he shall be released on bail on his
executing a bond of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five thousand only] with one
surety of the like amount on the following conditions that he shall:
[a] co-operate
with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation
whenever and wherever required.
[b] shall
remain present at the concerned Police Station on 19.7.2010 at 11:00
a.m.
[c] shall not
hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
[d] at the time
of execution of bond, furnish his residential 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] not leave
India without the permission of the Court and, if holding a passport,
they shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week;
[f] not
obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief
with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
It would be
open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand
if he considers it proper and just; and the competent Court would
decide it on merits.
This order
will hold good, if the applicant is arrested at any time within 90
days from today. The order for release on bail will remain operative
only for a period of ten days from the date of his arrest.
Thereafter, it will be open to the applicants to make a fresh
application for being enlarged on bail in usual course, which, when
it comes up before the competent Court, will be decided in accordance
with law, having regard to all the attending circumstances and the
materials available at the relevant time, without being influenced by
the fact that anticipatory bail was granted.
With these
directions, this application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
Direct Service is permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)
ynvyas
Top