Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9643/2008 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9643 of 2008
=========================================================
IRFANBHAI
MUNABHAI SHEIKH (VASOVALA)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
ARPIT A KAPADIA for Applicant.
MR HL JANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for
Respondent.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 24/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
RULE. Mr. H.L.
Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on
behalf of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, this matter is taken up for hearing today.
This is an
application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in connection with a criminal complaint being C.R.
No. I ? 69 of 2008 registered with Lunawada Police Station, Dist.
Panchmahal for offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 406 and
114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned advocate
for the petitioner submitted that on perusal of the FIR at Annexure
‘A’ the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the commission of
offence. Placing reliance on Annexure ‘D’, which is a certificate
issued by Ebrahim Bawany Technical Institute, Vadodara, learned
advocate submitted that the petitioner was at Baroda from 10.30 AM to
12.00 Noon whereas the offence is alleged to have taken place at 1.30
PM at Lunavada, which is at a distance of about 200 Kms. from
Vadodara. He submitted that it is practically impossible that the
petitioner would have reached Lunavada at the time of the incident
alleged in the FIR. Learned advocate submitted that in these
circumstances, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
offence, and the prayer for anticipatory bail may be granted.
On the other
hand, Mr. H.L. Jani, learned APP submitted that considering the role
attributed to the petitioner in the FIR and the gravity of the
offence in which he is involved, the prayer for anticipatory bail
deserves to be rejected.
Taking into
consideration the rival submissions of learned advocate and
considering the certificate produced by the petitioner at Annexure
‘D’ and the FIR, it prima facie appears that the offence is alleged
to have taken place at 1.30 PM whereas the petitioner was at Baroda
till 12.00 Noon. Considering the distance between Vadodara and
Lunavada, which is about 200 kms. it primafacie appears that the
petitioner could not have reached Lunavada at 1.30 PM. Having heard
the learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail
to the applicant without entering into the merits of the case.
In the event of
arrest of the petitioner in connection with C.R. No. I ? 69 of 2008
registered with Lunawada Police Station, Dist. Panchmahal, he shall
be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees ten
thousand only] with one surety of the like amount on the following
conditions that he shall:
[a]. co-operate
with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation
whenever and wherever required.
[b]. shall remain
present at the concerned Police Station on 28th July 2008
between 9.00 AM to 3.00 PM.
[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 his residential 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]. not leave
India without the permission of the Court and, if holding a passport,
he shall surrender the same before the trial Court within a week;
[f]. not obstruct
or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief with the
evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
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.
This order will
hold good, if the petitioner is 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 his arrest. Thereafter, it
will be open to the petitioner 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.
With these
directions, this Criminal Misc. Application is allowed. Rule is made
absolute.
Direct Service is
permitted.
mathew [H.B.ANTANI,
J. ]
Top