Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
R/CR.MA/7588/2011
ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No 7588 of 2011
======================================
HARDASBHAI
NATHABHAI MAHIDA....Applicant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT....Respondent
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
HRIDAY BUCH as ADVOCATE for the Applicant.
MR
JK SHAH, APP for the RESPONDENT.
======================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 07/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned APP Mr. J. K. Shah waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the State.
This
is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the
Code in connection with offence registered with Maliya Hatina Police
Station vide C.R.No.11 of 2010 for offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 114 of Indian Penal
Code.
It
appears from the case of the prosecution that three persons have
been shown as accused persons in the FIR. Accused Nos.1 & 2
shown in the FIR are natural brothers of the first informant. It is
the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 & 2 shown in the
FIR created a false document in the form of an affidavit for the
purpose of availing of financial aid from the Government for
construction of house. This affidavit is dated 02.09.2009. This
affidavit has been notarized by the present applicant. The present
applicant is a Notary Public. It is evident from the affidavit that
one Ajay Natha Dafda shown as accused No.3 in the FIR is the person
who identified the persons who signed the affidavit and who
presented themselves before the Notary Public i.e. the accused
applicant. It appears that all the three accused named in the FIR
were arrested in connection with this offence and have been ordered
to be released on regular bail. It also appears that investigation
is over and charge-sheet has also been filed. However, there are no
allegations against the present applicant in the FIR. However, the
accused applicant has been arrayed as accused because sanction
is awaited as required under the Notaries Act.
Be
that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that all other
accused directly involved in the alleged offence have been already
enlarged on bail and charge-sheet has also been filed, no custodial
interrogation would now be necessary so far as the accused
applicant is concerned.
In
this view of the matter, I am persuaded to exercise my discretion in
favour of the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant is ordered to
be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with offences registered with Maliya Hatina Police
Station vide C.R.No.I-11 of 2010 on his furnishing a bond of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety of like
amount on following conditions that he :
shall
cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for
interrogation whenever required.
shall
remain present at the concerned Police Station on 22.06.2011 between
9 a.m. to 2 p.m.;
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;
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;
will
not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is
holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court
within a week;
It
goes without saying that any observations touching the merits of the
case are purely for the purpose of deciding the question of grant of
bail and shall not be construed as an expression of the final
opinion in the main matter.
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.
With
these directions, application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
Direct Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(J.B.PARDIWALA,
J.)
Savariya
Page
4 of 4
Top