Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1008320/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10083 of 2008
=========================================================
SAVITABEN
MAHESHBHAI PATEL & ANOTHER
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BC DAVE for Applicants.
MR HL JANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 30/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
RULE. Mr. H.L.
Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on
behalf of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, this matter is taken up for hearing today.
At the outset,
learned advocate for the petitioners states that he does not press
this application insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned. The
application insofar as it relates to petitioner No.2 is, therefore,
rejected as not pressed. In the circumstances, this application is
being considered for petitioner No.1 only.
This is an
application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in connection with a criminal complaint being C.R.
No. I-80 of 2008 registered with Lunavada Police Station for offences
punishable under sections 498.A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Learned advocate
for the petitioner submitted that considering the role attributed to
the petitioner No.1, it is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
Learned advocate submitted that no overt act is alleged against
petitioner No.1. He further submitted that the petitioner No.1 is
ready and willing to co-operate with the investigating officer and is
not likely to flee the course of justice and, therefore, the case of
petitioner No.1 may be considered for grant of anticipatory bail.
Mr. H.L. Jani,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state opposed the grant
of bail and submitted that considering the nature of allegations and,
therefore, the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief.
Having heard the
learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and
circumstances of the case, petitioner No.1 is booked for the offenses
punishable under section 498.A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
I have also considered the role attributes to petitioner No.1 and
the involvement of petitioner No.1 in the commission of offense.
Having considered these aspects, I am inclined to grant anticipatory
bail to the applicant.
In the event of
arrest of petitioner No.1 in connection with C.R. No. I-80 of 2008
registered with Lunavada Police Station, she shall be released on
bail on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand only]
with one surety of the like amount on the following conditions that
she shall:
[a]. co-operate
with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation
whenever required.
[b]. shall remain
present at the concerned Police Station on 5th August 2008
between 9.00 AM to 3.00 PM.
[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 her 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,
she 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 Criminal Misc. Application is allowed.
Rule is
discharged qua petitioner No.2. Rule made made absolute qua
petitioner No.1.
Direct Service is
permitted.
mathew [H.B.ANTANI,
J. ]
Top