Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/7589/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 7589 of 2011
=============================================
BADARSING
DADUBHAI VAGHELA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance
:
MR BB NAIK SR. ADV. for MR
TUSHAR CHAUDHARY for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KP RAVAL ADDL. PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, MR
MEHUL RATHOD for
Complainant.
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 17/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with first information report registered at
CR No.I-222 of 2010 with Deesa Rural Police Station, Banaskantha, for
the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. At
the outset terms of settlement dated 17.6.2011 as agreed by and
between the parties signed by them in presence of witnesses is
ordered to be taken on record.
3. Learned
senior counsel for the applicant submits that considering the nature
of allegations vis-a-vis pendency of proceedings of civil nature for
the alleged transaction and now in terms of settlement the parties
have agreed to withdraw the proceedings as above initiated against
each other, custodial interrogation is not necessary, the applicant
having permanent residence and willing to abide by conditions that
may be imposed by this Court be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Heard
Learned APP for the respondent – State and Mr. Mehul Rathod,
learned advocate for the complainant.
5. 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 levelled against the applicant and pendency
of civil proceedings as well as terms of settlement arrived at
between the parties and it is agreed that they would abide by the
terms of settlement by imposing suitable conditions, I am inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 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 applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being CR
No.I-222 of 2010 with Deesa Rural Police Station, Banaskantha, the
applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like amount
on following conditions :-
[a] shall
cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for
interrogation whenever required.
[b] shall
remain present at concerned Police Station on 24.6.2011 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 applicant. The
applicant 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 applicant,
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. Rule
made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
9. Direct
service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top