Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
R/CR.MA/7690/2011
ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No 7690 of 2011
================================================================
PUNAMBHAI
AALJIBHAI RATHOD....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR
GAURAV K MEHTA as ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR
JK SHAH, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 09/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Rule. Learned APP Mr.
J.K.Shah, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of State.
This
is an application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code
praying for regular bail in connection with offence registered with
Javaharnagar Police Station vide CR No.I-42 of 2011 for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 186, 427, 436, 452 and 504 of Indian
Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of Public Property Damage Act.
It
is the case of the prosecution that the accused applicant is a
Member of Bajva Gram Panchayat. The FIR has been lodged by one
Madhuben R. Parmar, who is at present Sarpanch of Bajva. It appears
that there was acute problem of supply of potable water. As a result
of which inhabitants of Bajva Saurashtra Society staged a protest.
It is the case of the prosecution that mob of 40 to 50 people led by
the present applicant reached the office of Panchayat and at that
point of time quarrel ensued in this regard. It is the case of the
prosecution that the mob was instigated by the present applicant and
they caused damage to the furniture of the office of the Panchayat.
It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused
applicant and mob of 40 to 50 persons led by him forcefully entered
the premises of the Panchayat and thereby committed offence of
trespass.
Taking into consideration
nature of the offence and allegations levelled in the FIR and role
attributed to the accused – applicant I am persuaded to exercise
discretion in favour of the accused applicant taking into
consideration the following aspects :
(A) Prima facie on plain
reading of the FIR and the allegations levelled offence of Section
436 is not made out.
(B) All other offences are
magistrate triable offence.
(C) The investigation is
over.
(D) No apprehension of
accused person fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution
witnesses is expressed.
(E) Accused applicant
is Member of the Panchayat and has root in the society.
In
this view of the matter, I am persuaded to exercise my discretion in
favour of the accused applicant. Under the circumstances,
accused-applicant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail in
connection with offence registered with Javaharnagar Police Station,
being C.R.No.I-42 of 2011 on executing bond in the sum of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with one surety of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to
the conditions that he shall :
a) not take undue
advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
b) not act in a manner
injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
c) surrender passport, if
any, to the lower court within a week;
d) not leave the State of
Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
e) shall mark presence
once in a month at the concerned Police Station.
f) shall not indulge in
any activity and if having found in such activity the bail shall
stand automatically cancelled.
g) furnish the present
address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the
Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the
residence without prior permission of this Court;
The
authorities will release the applicant only if not required in
connection with any other offence for the time being.
If
breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions
Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate
action in the matter.
Bail
bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to
try the case.
It
goes without saying that any observations touching the merits of the
case, purely for the purpose of deciding the question of grant of
bail and shall not be construed as an expression of the final
opinion in the main matter.
Rule
made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA,
J.)
kks
Page
5 of 5
Top