Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1040520/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10405 of 2008
=========================================
ARVINDBHAI
BANSIBHAI SOLANKI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
VM PANCHOLI for Applicant(s) : 1,MR BHARAT J
JOSHI for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR HL JANI, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 06/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. RULE.
Mr HL Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of
Rule on behalf of the State. In the facts and circumstances of the
case and by consent of both the sides, this matter is taken up for
hearing today.
2. This
is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in connection with the FIR bearing CR No. I 198
of 2008 registered with Mahemdavad Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC.
3. Mr
VM Pancholi, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the commission of offence
and as such, no case is made out against the petitioner and
therefore, prayer as set out in the petition for enlarging the
petitioner on anticipatory bail may be granted.
4. Mr
HL Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State,
while opposing the petition, submitted that on perusal of the FIR and
the role attributed to the petitioner and the manner in which he is
involved in the commission of offence punishable under Sections 306
and 114 of the IPC, the application deserves to be rejected.
5. I
have heard Mr VM Pancholi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr
HL Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in great
detail. I have perused the averments made in the petition and the
FIR at Annexure-A to the petition. I have also considered the role
attributed to the petitioner and the manner in which the alleged
offence is committed by the petitioner. I have also considered the
order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kheda in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 321 of 2008 and the reasons assigned
by the learned Judge while rejecting the application. However,
considering the rival submissions and in the facts and circumstances
of the case, I am inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of
the petitioner.
6. In
the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with CR No. I 198
of 2008 registered with Mahemdavad Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC, 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 11th
August 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;
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 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.
9. With
these directions, this petition is allowed.
Rule
is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.
[H.B.
Antani, J.]
mrpandya*
Top