Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Abdul vs State on 23 August, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/11939/2011	 4/ 4	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11939 of 2011
 

 
 
=============================================
 

ABDUL
SAKUR ABDUL HAMID & 3 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

============================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR MM TIRMIZI for Applicant(s)
: 1 - 4. 
MS MANISHA L SHAH ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
=============================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 23/08/2011 

 

 
 
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-36 of 2011 with Khambhatt City Police Station, District:
Anand, for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 406
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned
counsel for the applicants submits that the complainant a lawyer has
taken recourse to invoking machinery of criminal law for the alleged
transaction for which the applicants are ready and willing to
cooperate with the investigation. It is further submitted that the
applicants are not likely to flee from the course of justice and by
imposing suitable conditions, the applicants 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 the facts of the case, 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.

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 applicants herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being
CR No.I-36 of 2011 with Khambhatt City Police Station, District:
Anand, 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 29.8.2011
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 applicants. 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 applicants,
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. At
the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the
observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage,
made by this Court while enlarging the applicants on bail.

9. Rule
made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.

10. Direct
service is permitted.

[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]

//smita//

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.142 seconds.