Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/11201/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11201 of 2010
=========================================================
DIPAMBHAI
VINUBHAI PATEL & 4 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
HL
PATEL ADVOCATES for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 5.
MR MR MENGDEY, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
PP MAJMUDAR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 27/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Present
application has been filed by the applicants for grant of
anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR
being C.R.No. I-370 of 2010 registered with Makarpura Police Station,
District: Vadodara for the alleged offence punishable under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 114 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 7 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Learned
Counsel Mr. Pandya referred to the papers and submitted that all the
family members are sought to be implicated falsely. Learned Counsel
Mr. Pandya referred to the papers and submitted that after some
matrimonial disharmony, the talks about divorce were finalized and
thereafter the present complaint has been filed only to pressurize.
Therefore, present application may be entertained.
3. Learned
APP Mr. Mengdey resisted the application.
4. Learned
Advocate Mr. Majmudar referred to the papers and submitted that at
least for applicant No.1 husband, the discretion may not be
exercised. He also submitted that he is likely to go away, therefore,
suitable condition may be imposed.
5. In
view of the rival submission, it is required to be considered whether
the present application can be entertained or not. From the nature of
allegations and the circumstances alleged, it transpires that the
settlement was arrived at with regard to the divorce and the amount
was also fixed. However, the amount was not paid and some time was
sought which led to filing of the present compliant. It prima facie,
therefore, appears that it is a family dispute with regard to the
divorce. Therefore, in light of the guidelines for exercise of
discretion under Section 438, the present application deserves to be
allowed.
6. Accordingly,
the present application is allowed. The applicants Dipambhai
Vinubhai Patel, Vinubhai Chotubhai Patel, Kumudben Vinubhai Patel,
Archnaben Mehulbhai Patel and Narendrabhai Hasmukhbhai Patel are
ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in
connection with FIR being C.R.No. I-370 of 2010 registered with
Makarpura Police Station, District: Vadodara, in respect of the
offence alleged against them on their executing bond of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five thousand only) each with one solvent surety of the like
amount by them, by the concerned Police Officer and on conditions
that they shall;
a) remain present before the trial Court regularly as and when directed on the dates fixed;
b) remain present at the concerned Police Station on 30.09.2010 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m;
c) make themselves available for interrogation by Police Officer, whenever and wherever required before sunset;
d) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;
e) not to obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
f) at the time of execution of bond, furnish their address to the Investigating Officer and the Courts concerned, and shall not change their residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;
g) The applicant no.1 husband shall surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer till the issue of divorce by mutual consent is finally resolved.
h) It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just; and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits.
7. 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, during which it will be open to the applicants to make fresh application for being enlarged on bail in usual course which when it comes before the competent Court, will be disposed of in accordance with law, having regard to all the attending circumstances and the materials available at the relevant time uninfluenced by the fact that anticipatory bail was granted. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)
jani
Top