Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2977/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2977 of 2011
=================================================
GHANSHAYAMBHAI
HARDAS PARSANA – Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 – Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
ND NANAVATY Senior Advocate with PM LAKHANI for Applicant(s) : 1,MR
RH RUPARELIYA for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH APP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR
SAURABH M PATEL for Respondent(s) :
2,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 27/04/2011
In
spite of issuance of fresh rule, no one appears for respondent No.2.
Mr.
Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate submits that co-accused facing
various allegations have been enlarged on bail by the trial Court
and one of he co-accused is granted anticipatory bail by considering
his age being 75 years. It is further submitted that the applicant
is a broker and though allegations levelled against him are that the
applicant has committed the crime, no material is there to connect
the present applicant with the alleged crime. It is further
submitted that the applicant has roots in the society, will not flee
from justice and by imposing suitable conditions, the applicant may
be granted anticipatory bail.
Heard
Learned APP for the respondent – State.
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, role attributed to the accused and punishment
prescribed for the alleged offences, coupled with the fact that one
of the co-accused is granted anticipatory bail and other co-accused
are enlarged by the trial Court, without discussing the evidence in
detail, at this stage, 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.
Learned
counsel 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
CR No.I-25/2009 with Karjan Police Station, District Vadodara for
the offences punishable under sections 406, 408, 409, 460, 468, 471,
120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 2nd May,
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.
Rule
made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
Direct
service is permitted.
(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)
*pvv
Top