Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2336/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2336 of 2011
=============================================
MILAPBHAI
JAYENDRABHAI SHUKLA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance :
MR YS LAKHANI
SR. ADV. with MR. PS GONDALIYA for M/S S G
ASSOCIATES for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KL PANDYA ADDL. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 24/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent – State.
2. This
application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with first information report registered at
CR No.I-306 of 2003 with Fateganj Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 403, 406, 415, 418, 420 and 424 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned
senior counsel for the applicant submits that for the alleged
offences of the year 1996 and subsequent events, for which, the
applicant is sought to be arrested who resigned from the Company in
1997 and Company had passed a resolution to the above effect and form
No.32 was submitted. Besides, the applicant is available for
investigation and has root in the society and not likely to flee from
the course of justice. Even the whole record pertaining to alleged
offence is in custody of ROC or with the police, considering the
above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Heard
Learned APP for the respondent – State.
5. Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the
case and taking into consideration all the above facts, I am inclined
to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 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.
6. Learned
counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
7. In
the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the
event of the applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being CR
No.I-306 of 2003 with Fateganj Police Station, the applicant shall
be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) with one surety of like amount on following conditions
:-
[a] shall
cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for
interrogation whenever required.
[b] shall
remain present at concerned Police Station on 28.2.2011 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
applicant 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.
8. Rule
made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
9. Direct
service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top