Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2085/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2085 of 2011
=============================================
JAYSHREEBEN
W/O KETANBHAI GOVINDBHAI PARMAR & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance
:
MR DIPEN K DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.MR LAXMANSINH M ZALA for Applicant(s) : 1 -
2.
MR AJ DESAI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 22/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with first information report registered at
CR No.I-456 of 2010 with J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 504 and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned
counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are
sister-in-law and brother-in-law and residing at Ahmedabad. The
complainant is residing at her matrimonial home and Ahmedabad and
allegations are to the extent that the applicant No.1 used to
telephone her brother and instigate him to divorce the complainant.
It is therefore submitted that when other co-accused including
father-in-law mother-in-law and even husband are enlarged on bail,
the case of the applicants be considered for anticipatory bail.
3. Heard
Learned APP for the respondent – State.
4. Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the
case and taking into consideration the above facts, I am inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. This Court has also taken
into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Reported in [2011]1 SCC 694, wherein the Apex Court
reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case
of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Reported in [1980]2
SCC 565.
5. Learned
counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
6. In
the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the
event of the applicants herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being
CR No.I-456 of 2010 with J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara, the
applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with one surety of like
amount on following conditions :-
[a] shall
cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for
interrogation whenever required.
[b] shall
remain present at concerned Police Station on 26.2.2011 between
11:00 am to 2:00 pm:
[c] shall
not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so
as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
Police Officer;
[d] shall
at the time of execution of bond, furnish the 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]
will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is
holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court
immediately
[f] It
would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for
remand, if he considers it just and proper and the concerned
Magistrate would decide it on merits.
[g] despite
this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to
the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The
applicants shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the
first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent
occasions, 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 right 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.
7. Rule
made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
8. Direct
service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top