Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/15578/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 15578 of 2010
=============================================
MOHAMMAD
RAFIQ FAKRUDDIN NAGINGAR & 2 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance
:
MR PM THAKKAR SR. ADV. for M/S
THAKKAR ASSOC. for Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR KARTIK PANDYA ADDL.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 27/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Inspite
of the communication sent by the office of the Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, about listing and hearing of the
case before this Court today, concerned Investigating officer has not
remained present. In view of the above, the Court has no other
option but to proceed on the material available on record.
The
District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, is directed to order
inquiry against the concerned Investigating Officer for not sending
any communication to the office of the Public Prosecutor so as to
assist the Court with regard to the subject matter of the case and
report to the Registrar of this Court in due course within a period
of four weeks.
2. Rule.
Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for respondent – State.
3. This
application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with first information report registered at
CR No.II-595 of 2010 with Jamnagar City “A” Division
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506,
506(2) and 1214 etc. of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned
counsel for the applicants submits that if allegations formed the
basis for initiating machinery of criminal law in motion against the
officers like the applicants, it would be difficult for them to
perform their duties efficiently and without fear and favour besides,
they are available for investigation and not likely to flee from
course of justice by imposing suitable conditions, the applicants be
granted anticipatory bail.
5. Heard
learned APP for the respondent – State.
6. Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the
case and considering the facts that the applicants are serving as
officers of the Sales Tax and allegations levelled against them are
of threatening and abusing the complainant to transfer and suspend
him in case if he continued to make baseless allegations against
them. It further appears that the complainant, a union leader had
taken an extreme step of committing suicide by consuming the poison
and ultimately succeeded to the ill effects of consuming poison.
Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of (1)
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in
Criminal Appeal No.2271/2010 and (2) Ravindra Saxena vs. Stateo f
Rajasthan [2010 (1) GLH 382], I am inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicants.
7. Learned
counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
8. 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.II-595 of 2010 with Jamnagar City “A” Division
Police Station, the applicants shall be released on bail on
furnishing a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each with
one surety of like amount on following conditions :-
shall
cooperate with the investigation and make available for whenever
required;
shall
remain present at the concerned Police Station on 30th
December, 2010 at 11.00 a.m.;
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 for disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
Police Officer;
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 of till further
orders;
will
not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is
holding a passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court
within a week;
it
would be open to the Investigating Officer to file application/s for
remand, if he considers it just and proper and the concerned
Magistrate would decide it on merits;
this
order will be operative if the applicants are arrested at any time
within a period of 90 days;
within
a period of ten days from the date of arrest, the applicants shall
apply for regular bail which application shall be decided by the
competent Court in accordance with law without being influenced by
the fact that anticipatory bail was granted.
9. With
these directions, this Criminal Misc. Application is disposed of.
Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top