Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10287/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10287 of 2011
=========================================================
BHARGAV
DILIPBHAI DESAI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PM THAKKAR, SR. ADVOCATE with MR ZUBIN F BHARDA
for Applicant(s) : 1,
MRS.
MANISHA L. SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 25/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
This
application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with First Information Report registered as
I-C.R. No.83/2011 with Pardi Police Station, Valsad for the offences
punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code.
Learned
Senior Counsel Mr. P.M. Thakkar appearing with learned Counsel Mr.
Zubin F. Bharda for the applicant submits that the
revenue entries which is the subject matter of the complaint is
finally set aside by the Deputy Collector, Valsad by an order dated
03.02.2011 and the matter is remanded to the competent authority to
determine record of rights on the basis of succession. It is further
submitted that the applicant
has roots in the society and considering the nature of transactions,
dispute etc. and the availability of the applicant for
investigation, the applicant may be granted anticipatory
bail.
Heard
learned APP Mrs. Manisha L. Shah for the respondent-State and
learned Advocate Ms. Archana N.
Patel for the complainant.
Having
heard learned Counsels for the parties and perusing the record of
the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, 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 Stalingappa 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.
Learned
Counsels for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
In
the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the
event of the applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being
I-C.R. No.83/2011 with Pardi Police Station, Valsad, 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 the concerned Police Station on 29th
JULY, 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 an 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.
Rule
made absolute. The application is disposed of accordingly.
Direct
Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(Anant
S. Dave, J.)
Caroline
Top