Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/13785/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13785 of 2011
======================================
VIKRAM
@ BIKRAMPRASAD SAHDEVBHAI YADAV - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
BALRAM D JAIN for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KL PANDYA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 11/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. 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-116
of 2011 registered with Bardoli Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 419, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. Learned
advocate Mr. B.D. Jain for the applicant submitted that the applicant
is an innocent person and he has been wrongly arraigned in the case
of the prosecution. He also submitted that the complaint is lodged
after 18 days from the date of offence. The applicant is an employee
of BSNL and the sim card was purchased on the basis of identity of
the complainant’s documents. Even there was consent of the
complainant and the complainant belongs the mobile number of the
applicant since last five years. He also submitted that the presence
of the applicant can be secured during the trial. Therefore,
anticipatory bail may kindly be granted in favour of the applicant by
imposing suitable conditions.
3. Mr.
Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State
submitted that from the bare reading of the complaint, prima facie,
it appears that the role is attributed on the part of the applicant.
He read the provisions of Sections 406, 419, 465, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code and he submitted that considering 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.
4. Perused
the application along with papers and considered the submissions
advanced by the learned advocate of respective parties. Prima facie
it appears that the recovery of muddamal – sim card is
recovered from the complainant and statement of the officers of the
BSNL are recorded by the Investigating Agency.
5. In
view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and without
entering into detailed discussion of evidence of the case at this
stage of anticipatory bail, I am inclined to exercise discretion in
favour of the applicant.
6. The
application is stands allowed. The applicant is granted anticipatory
bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No. I –
116 of 2011 registered with Bardoli Police Station, for the offences
as alleged in FIR on his executing bond of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten
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 he required.
[b] shall
remain present at the concerned Police Station on 13.10.2011
at 11.00 AM
[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 him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
[d] at
the time of execution of bond, furnish him 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, he 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;
7. 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.
8. 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 on such application and on all subsequent occasion, 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 rights 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.
9. 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.
10. The
applicant is permitted to obtain regular bail as per the established
provision of law, within suitable time.
Rule
made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)
ynvyas
Top