Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/11261/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11261 of 2010
=========================================================
VANRAJSINH
DILIPSINH VAGHELA & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
SVRAJUASSOCIATES
for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR HL JANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR PRADIP
D BHATE for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 10/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
application is preferred under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, by the applicants who are apprehending their arrest in
connection with I. C.R. No. 41/2009, registered with D.C.B. Police
Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
420, 467, 468, 471, 506[1] and 294[b] of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Mr.
S.V. Raju, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing for the applicants,
submitted that the applicants are nowhere involved in the alleged
commission of offence as alleged in the FIR. Considering the fact
that the complainant has filed detailed affidavit, wherein, no
grievance is made out against the present applicants, they deserve to
be granted anticipatory bail as prayed for in the application.
Learned counsel has also placed reliance on Annexure:C which is a
letter written by the complainant to the Police Inspector, Naroda
Police Station, wherein, names of the present applicants are also not
mentioned. Considering
the aforesaid aspect and the FIR which is produced along with the
present application, prayer, as set out in the application be
granted. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan
[(2010) 1 SCC 684], in support of the submission that even in case of
successive anticipatory bail application, the ratio laid down in the
above judgment can be considered. Thus, the learned counsel submitted
that the prayer as set out in the application be granted.
Mr.
H.L. Jani, learned APP, while opposing the application submitted
that the applicants are facing charge of offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506[1] and 294[b] of IPC.
Considering the role attributed to the applicants and this being
successive application for anticipatory bail, no discretionary
relief be granted to the applicants and the the application deserves
to be rejected out of hand.
Heard
the learned counsel for the parties at length and in detail. I have
also considered the role attributed to the applicants as reflected in
the FIR. I have also perused the affidavit filed by the complainant
wherein he has not voiced any grievance against the applicants. I
have also considered the ratio laid down in the decision of the Apex
Court referred to herienabove. Considering peculiar facts and
circumstances, substantial change in the circumstances and the
affidavit filed by the complainant, wherein, he has not voiced any
grievance against the applicants, I am of the view that the
applicants deserve to be granted anticipatory bail without recording
the reasons in detail. Hence, the following
order is passed.
In
the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with FIR bearing
I. C.R. No. 41/2009 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad
for the offences punishable under Sections 406,
420, 467, 468, 471, 506[1] and 294[b] of IPC, they
shall be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each
[Rupees ten thousand only] with one surety each of the like amount on
the following conditions that they shall:
[a] co-operate
with the investigation and make themselves available for
interrogation whenever and wherever required.
[b] shall
remain present at the concerned Police Station on 15th
December, 2010 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 their residential address to
the investigating officer and the Court concerned and shall not
change their 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 applicants are 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 their
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.
[H.B.
Antani, J.]
pirzada/-
Top