Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/6447/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6447 of 2011
=========================================================
CHETRAM
CHANDGIRAM BHARDWAJ & 4 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARSHIT S TOLIA WITH MR VISHAL B MEHTA
for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 5.
MR RC KODEKAR, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 11/05/2011
ORAL ORDER
Rule.
Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor waives service
of Rule on behalf of the opponent-State.
This
is an application preferred by the applicants under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail in connection
with CR No. I 4/11 registered with Veraval City Police Station, for
the offences punishable under Sections 304[B], 498[a], 504, 506[2]
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Case
of the prosecution, as revealed from the FIR is that, daughter of
the first informant, named, Savita committed suicide as she was being
harassed by her husband and the applicants herein. Applicant no.1
herein is the father-in-law, applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law,
applicant no.3 is the brother-in-law and applicant nos. 4 and 5 are
distant relatives of applicant nos. 1,2 and 3. It is evident from the
FIR that deceased got married to one Ashwinikumar on 11.7.2008. At
the time of marriage, Ashwinikumar was unemployed. In November, 2008,
he got a job in the office of the Income Tax Department at Veraval,
Gujarat. After about ten months from the date of the marriage,
Ashwinikumar and deceased Savita got settled at Veraval. It is
alleged that Ashwinikumar wanted to buy a house and for that, he
started harassing Savita and kept on insisting that Savita should get
some money from her father. As usual, thereafter, allegations are
levelled against each of the applicants that they were also harassing
Savita. In the FIR, it has been stated that about one and a half year
back, the first informant had received a phone call from
applicant-accused no.1, i.e. father-in-law of the deceased and at
that point of time, father-in-law is said to have told the first
informant to come and take away his daughter. In short, case of the
prosecution is that the accused persons kept on harassing the
deceased, as a result of which, the deceased committed suicide.
I
have heard Mr. Harshit Tolia appearing with Mr. Vishal Mehta for the
applicants and Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned APP for the opponent-State.
I have also perused the relevant papers. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am persuaded to exercise my discretion
in favour of the applicants taking into consideration the following
aspects:-
[a] It is an
admitted fact that the deceased and her husband Ashwinikumar were
residing separately at Veraval, Gujarat. They started residing
separately within ten months from the date of their marriage.
[b] It is also an
admitted fact that accused nos. 1,2 and 3 i.e. father-in-law,
mother-in-law and brother-in-law are residing at Delhi. They have
never visited Veraval.
[c] So far as
accused nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, there are no allegations against
them except the fact that they played role as interveners to settle
the dispute between the husband and wife. Besides this, prima facie
it appears that having regard to the nature of allegations and case
of the prosecution, this is not a case of dowry death and there is no
demand relating to dowry. Accepting the case of prosecution as it is,
it can be a case of abetting commission of suicide punishable under
Section 306 of IPC. Apart from this, accused no.1 is aged about 63
years, accused no.2 is aged about 56 years. So far as accused no.3 is
concerned, he is brother-in-law of the deceased.
[d] Accused-applicants
are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and are
ready and willing to abide by any conditions which this Court may
deem fit in the interest of justice.
In
this view of the matter, accused-applicants are ordered to be
enlarged on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a bond in the sum
of Rs. 25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only] each with local
solvent surety each of the like amount in the event of their arrest
in connection with the offence registered with Veraval City Police
Station, vide C.R. No.I-4 of 2011 and on the conditions that they:
(A) shall
cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for
interrogation whenever required.
(B) shall
remain present themselves before the Investigating Officer at the
concerned police station on 23rd
May, 2011 between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m.
(C) shall
mark presence once in a month at Veraval City Police Station on every
fourth Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. till charge-sheet is
filed. After the charge-sheet is filed, they shall appear before the
concerned Sessions Court as and when required for the purpose of
trial.
(D) 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;
(E) 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;
(F) will
not leave India without the permission of the Court and if are
holding a passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court
within a week;
(G) 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.
It
would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent
Magistrate, for police remand of the applicants. The applicants shall
remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of
hearing
on such application and on all subsequent occasion, 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 applicants, 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.
It
is clarified that findings recorded in this order are prima facie
observations relevant only for the purpose of this anticipatory bail
application and for no other purpose.
With
these directions, application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA,
J.)
pirzada/-
Top