Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/12725/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 12725 of 2011
======================================
JAGTABHAI
MANJIBHAI RAJPUT - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
SR SHARMA for Applicant(s) : 1,MR BT GADHAVI for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR
KL PANDYA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 03/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
In
the facts and circumstances of the case and by consent of both the
sides, this matter is taken up for hearing today.
2. This
is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in connection with the FIR bearing Prohibition
C.R. No.5009 of 2011 registered with Vaav Police Station, Dist.
Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 66-B, 65A,E,
81, 83, 98 and 116(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
3. Learned
advocate Mr. Sharma 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 liquor is not belonged to
the applicant and the vehicles, which were allegedly used for
carrying the liquor, do not belong to the applicant. From the papers
of charge-sheet and FIR, there is no role attributed to the
applicant. The applicant is young person. Therefore, the applicant
may kindly be granted anticipatory bail by imposing suitable
conditions.
4. 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.
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.
5. Perused
the application along with papers and considered the submissions
advanced by the learned advocate of respective parties. From the
papers, prima facie, it appears that there is no direct evidence
links the applicant in the commission of the offence and even at this
stage of anticipatory bail, this Court is not entering into merit of
the case.
6. In
view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined
to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.
7. The
application is stands allowed. The applicant is granted anticipatory
bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Prohibition CR
No.5009 of 2011 registered with Vaav Police Station, Dist.
Banaskantha 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 5.10.2011
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;
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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