Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/8452/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8452 of
2011
=========================================================
HARKISHAN
JERAMBHAI PUJARI - THRO' SHANTILAL J PUJARI & 2 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR RD DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1
- 3.
Mr.Dabhi, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 23/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
accused-applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of
his arrest in connection with offences registered at Dungari Police
Station vide C.R.No.I-34 of 2011 for offences punishable under
sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 326 and 294(B) of Indian Penal
Code in respect of its the complaint to be lodged on 7th
June, 2011.
Mr.R.D.Dave,
learned advocate for the applicants submitted that cross complaints
have been filed in connection with the alleged incident. He
submitted that mainly there are two groups of persons, who have been
performing ‘Pooja’ in the temple, which is a trust property,
taking their respective turns as per practice which has prevailed
and has been followed since last many years.
He
also submitted that certain disputes as regards the scheme and in
connection with the matters related to Trust are pending before the
Charity Commissioner. He submitted that in connection with the right
to perform ‘Pooja, the complainant of present complaint, who
are accused in the complaint filed by the present applicants,
assaulted the present applicants and in defense, this is scuffle
between the persons of the two groups occurred in view of which, the
cross complaints came to be filed. He submitted that the present
applicants are innocent. They have not committed alleged offence and
no specific allegations about their alleged role is mentioned in the
FIR. He also submitted that all the accused persons in connection
with the complaint filed by present complainants have been released
on bail.
It
is also submitted that the complainant in the cross complaint are
family members. He also submitted that actually present applicants
received injuries on account of assault by the 10 accused persons in
the complaint filed by the present complainant and the said 10
persons have been released on bail. He also submitted that out of
the five accused in present complaint, accused No.1 and 2 have also
been released. Therefore, it is requested that the application for
present applicants for bail may be considered and granted.
Mr.Dave
also submitted that the parties have mutually arrived at an
agreement not to enter into any scuffle and on ad-hoc basis i.e.
until the orders of the Charity Commissioner is passed, to follow
the same practice and schedule of ‘Pooja’ as was being done
until now and thereafter to abide by the order which may be passed
by the Charity Commissioner.
Mr.Dabhi,
learned APP has opposed the application and submitted that
applicants were given stick blow in the result of which, the
complainant received injury. He, however, conceded that all persons
who are in jail are now discharged. He also could not dispute that
all the 10 accused-persons in the cross complaint have been released
and also accused No.1 and 2 in the present complaint are also
released.
Having
regard to the submissions made by learned counsel and considering
the facts and circumstances and having regard to the
compromise arrived at between the parties as well as the
alleged role attributed to the present applicants, the nature of the
allegations, the nature of offence coupled with the fact that all 10
accused-persons in cross complaint and accused Nos.1 and 2 in
present case also have been released on bail and the
injured persons are also discharged from the Hospital and taking
into account the law laid down by Apex Court in case of Siddharam
Stalingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and 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 and Ors. reported
in [1980] 2 SCC 565, I
am persuaded to exercise my discretion in favour of the
accused-applicants and grant them anticipatory bail.
In
this view of the matter, accused-applicants are ordered to be
enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the
offence registered with Dungari Police Station vide C.R.No.I-34 of
2011. They shall be released on anticipatory bail on each one
furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with
one surety of like amount for each applicant, on following
conditions that they:
[A]
shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available
for interrogation whenever required;
[B]
shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 30th
June, 2011 between 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.;
[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
within a week;
[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.
9. 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 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.
10.With
these directions, application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
(ashish)
Top