Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9774/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9774 of 2011
=========================================================
JAYANTILAL
SHANKARLAL PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BM MANGUKIYA for
Applicant(s) : 1,MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for Applicant(s) : 1,
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 30/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
Application is filed by the applicant under
Section-438 Cr. P.C. in connection with CR No.I-46 of 2010 registered
with Khanpur Police Station, Panchmahal for the offences punishable
under Sections-406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B of
Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard
learned advocate Mr. B. M. Mangukia appearing for applicant and
learned APP Mr. K. L. Pandya appearing for respondent State.
3. Case
of the prosecution, prima facie, appears to be that many persons not
eligible to receive aid from the Government towards compensation
being riot victims, was paid. It was decided that the amount towards
compensation paid to the persons not entitled was to be recovered and
the proceedings for the recovery of the same were to be undertaken by
a few government officials, including the present applicant, who at
the relevant point of time was serving as Asst. Taluka Development
Officer. The record reveals that everything transpired way-back in
the year 2002-2004. The applicant was on the post of Asst. Taluka
Development Officer from May 17, 2002 to March 31, 2004 at Khanpur.
Thereafter, the applicant opted for voluntary retirement. Taking the
case of the prosecution at its best, so far as the present applicant
is concerned, it can be that of negligence and dereliction of duty.
In any view of the matter, the applicant has retired long time back,
practically all the co-accused charge-sheeted in the alleged offence
have been enlarged on the bail by various orders passed by the High
Court. In my view, custodial interrogation is not necessary. In the
fact and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of
allegations and the role attributed to the accused applicant, without
discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the
opinion that the discretion can be exercised in favour of the
accused, applicant.
4. Taking
into consideration the relevant aspects referred to above and further
taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Siddhram Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors., reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reiterated the law laid down by the constitutional Bench in the
case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 565,
this application is allowed by directing that in the event of the
applicant herein being arrested
pursuant CR No. I-46 of 2010, registered with Khanpur
Police Station, Panchmahal, the applicant shall be released on Bail
on his furnishing a Bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)
with one surety of like amount on condition that –
a) he
shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available
whenever required;
b) he
shall not enter the revenue limits of Ahmedabad City till the
conclusion of the trial.
c) he
shall remain present before the Investigating Officer, Khanpur Police
Station, Panchmahal, on 3rd October, 2011
at 11.00 am.
d) he
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 for disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any Police Officer;
e) at
the time of execution of Bond, he shall furnish his address to the
I.O. and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence till
the final disposal of the case or till further orders;
f) that
he will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if
is holding a Passport, surrender the same before the trial Court
immediately;
g) It
would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application
for remand, if considers it just and proper and the concerned
Magistrate would decide it on merits;
h) this
order will be operative if the applicant is arrested at any time
within a period of 90 days;
i) within
a period of ten days from the date of arrest, the applicant shall
apply for regular bail which application shall be decided by the
competent Court in accordance with law without being influenced by
the fact that anticipatory bail was granted.
5. Learned
advocate for the applicant assured that applicant will appear before
concerned police station as per direction of this Court.
6. With
these directions, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is disposed
of. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
(ila)
Top