Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10649/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10649 of 2011
=========================================================
ALPESHKUMAR
KANAIYALAL MEVADA & 3 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HIMANSU M PADHYA for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 4.
MS ML SHAH, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 04/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Learned APP Ms.M.L.Shah waives service of notice of Rule for
respondent – State.
2. It
is submitted that the allegation in the complaint are of the incident
which took place before 8 years and the amount was due to the
complainant, since he was member of the money circulation scheme
floated by the accused. Now the issue is settled between the
parties. It is further
submitted that the applicants have roots in the society, will not
flee from justice and will cooperate with the investigation as and
when called for. It is further submitted that in view of the above,
the applicants may be granted 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 facts of the case, nature of
allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment,
prescribed for the alleged offences and without discussing the
evidence in detail, at this stage, 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 – 218 of 2011 with Palanpur Police Station for the
offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code, 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 10.8.2011 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 their address to the
Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change
their 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.
7. At
the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the prima facie
observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicants on
bail.
8.
Rule made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct
service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
syed/
Top