Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/5768/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5768 of 2011
=============================================
KARAN
RAJKUMAR BUDHRANI & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance
:
MR KB ANANDJIWALA for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR JK SHAH ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 26/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent – State.
2. This
application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with first information report registered at
CR No.I- 18 of 2011 with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 406, 294(B) and
114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
3. Learned
counsel for the applicants submit that this a case where the husband
is subjected to cruelty due to conduct of the victim and version of
the complainant is nothing but concoction of incidents. On the
contrary the applicant herein had to undergo mental agony because of
conduct on the part of the victim of defying all kinds of matrimonial
norms. It is further submitted that all other co-accused have been
enlarged on bail except the applicants herein and by imposing
suitable conditions, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Heard
Learned APP for the respondent – State.
4
(a). Learned advocate for the complainant opposes grant of bail to
the applicants.
5. Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the
case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 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.
6. Learned
counsel for the parties do not press for further reasoned order.
7. In
the result, this application is allowed by directing that in the
event of the applicants herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being
CR No.I- 18 of 2011 with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad, the
applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with one surety of like
amount on following conditions :-
[a] shall
cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for
interrogation whenever required.
[b] shall remain
present at concerned Police Station on 30th
April, 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
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 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.
8. Rule
made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
9. Direct
service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top