Gujarat High Court High Court

Parmar vs State on 27 April, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Parmar vs State on 27 April, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/5644/2011	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5644 of 2011
 

 
=========================================================


 

PARMAR
KANKUBEN WD/O JIVANBHAI MAGANBHAI & 3 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
SN BAROT for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 4. 
MR JK SHAH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 27/04/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

RULE.

Learned APP Mr. J.K. Shah waives service of notice of Rule for the
respondent – State.

This
application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with First Information Report registered as
I-C.R. No.19/2011 with Mahesana City Police Station, Mahesana for
the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474,
472, 476 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned
Counsel for the applicants submits that co-accused
is enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions by the
Co-ordinate Bench and considering other attending circumstances, the
applicants herein may be granted anticipatory bail.

Heard
learned APP for the respondent-State.

Having
heard learned Counsels 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 Stalingappa 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
Counsels 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 applicants herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being
I-C.R. No.19/2011 with Mahesana City Police Station, Mahesana 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 the 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
applicants. The applicants shall remain present before the learned
Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such an 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.

Rule
made absolute. The application is disposed of accordingly.

Direct
Service is permitted.

Sd/-

(Anant
S. Dave, J.)

Caroline

   

Top