Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/8780/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8780 of 2008
=====================================================
ANJANIKUMAR
DWARKA PRASAD DUBE AND ANOTHER - Applicants
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent
=====================================================
Appearance
:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI for the
Applicants..
MS MANISHA L. SHAH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the Respondent.
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 16/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. RULE.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Manisha L. Shah waives
service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for hearing today.
2. This
is an application preferred under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking anticipatory bail of the petitioners in connection
with C. R. bearing No. I-53 of 2008 filed at Dehgam Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 147,
148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 25 (1) (a) of
the Arms Act read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
3. Learned
Advocate Mr. A. M. Dagli for the petitioners submitted that
considering the role attributed to the petitioners, it is a fit case
to release the petitioners on bail. The learned Advocate submitted
that the petitioners were not at all involved in the commission of
offences, and in fact, the petitioners sustained injuries in the fire
and they were required to take treatment in the hospital. In view of
the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned
Advocate submitted that prayer, as set out in the application, be
granted.
4. As
against the aforesaid submission, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor Ms. Manisha L. Shah for the respondent-State submitted
that considering the role attributed to the petitioners, the gravity
of the offences and the quantum of punishment, the application for
bail does not call for interference and the same is required to be
rejected.
5. Having
heard the learned Counsel of both the sides and on perusal of the
averments made in the application as well as the FIR produced at
Annexure-A to the petition, it is clear that in the fight that ensued
between the two sides, the petitioners sustained injuries. They were
also required to be admitted in the hospital and they are under
treatment in the hospital. However, considering the role attributed
to the petitioners, I am inclined to exercise my discretion in favour
of the petitioners.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. In the event of
arrest of the petitioners in connection with C.R. No. C. R. bearing
No. I-53 of 2008 filed at Dehgam Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 147, 148 and 149 of the
Indian Penal Code as well as Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act read
with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, they shall be released on
bail on their executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand
Only] each with one surety each of the like amount on the following
conditions that they shall:
[a] co-operate
with the investigation and make themselves available for
interrogation whenever and wherever required;
[b] shall
remain present at the concerned Police Station on any date between
9.00 AM to 3.00 PM within one week from the date of their release
from the hospital;
[c] shall
not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
[d] at
the time of execution of bond, furnish their residential 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] not
leave India without the permission of the Court and, if holding a
passport, they shall surrender the same before the trial Court within
a week; and,
[f] not
obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief
with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.
7. It
would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for
remand if he considers it proper and just; and the competent Court
would decide it on merits.
8. This
order will hold good, if the petitioners 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. Thereafter, it will be open to the petitioners to make a
fresh application for being enlarged on bail in usual course, which,
when it comes up before the competent Court, will be decided in
accordance with law, having regard to all the attending circumstances
and the materials available at the relevant time, without being
influenced by the fact that anticipatory bail was granted.
9. Rule
is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.
[H.
B. ANTANI, J.]
/shamnath
Top