Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
R/CR.MA/7560/2011
ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No 7560 of 2011
================================================================
PRAVINBHAI
CHAGANBHAI PATEL....Applicant(s)
Versus
PUBLIC
PROCECUTOR....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.ALKESH
N SHAH as ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR
LB DABHI APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 13/06/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for
respondent State.
2. The
applicant has taken out present application under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with the offences registered with Bhadarwa Police
Station bearing M Case No.7 of 2010 punishable under
Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 114 of
the I.P.C.
3. Heard
Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the applicant.
4. Mr.Shah,
learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that prima-facie
there is no evidence against the present applicant except that he had
signed as a witness in the Power of Attorney. He has further
submitted that the applicant has neither signed any bogus document
nor made any bogus document as well as he is not beneficiary in the
land at all.
5. Mr.Shah,
learned advocate, has also further submitted that by order dated
12.05.2011, the purchaser has also been granted bail and that
therefore, present application may be granted. He has submitted that
applicant is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed.
Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the applicant has also stated that the
applicant will be available whenever his presence is required. He
requests that the applicant, at this stage, may be granted
anticipatory bail.
6. Heard
Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent-State of Gujarat.
7. Mr.
Dabhi, learned APP opposed the submissions of the learned advocate
for the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed
serious offences and the incident is not in dispute. He has requested
that present application may not be entertained.
8. Having
heard to the fact that the accused is only a signatory to the witness
and not the beneficiary to the disputed transaction and having regard
to the fact that one of the accused has been released on bail vide
order dated 25.4.2011 in Criminal Misc. Application No.5167 of 2011
and by order dated 12.05.2011, the purchaser has also been granted on
bail and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel
for both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the
case as well as the documents and other material produced on record
of this case, the gravity of the offence, the quantum of punishment,
the allegations against the applicant and the manner in which the
applicant is allegedly involved in the case, I am of the view that
the applicant deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, I am
inclined to allow this application and release the applicant.
9. 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 applicant. 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. Hence,
this application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of
the arrest of the abovenamed applicant in connection with M Case No.7
of 2010 registered with the Bhadarwa Police Station, Vadodara, he
shall be released on bail, in respect of the offences alleged against
him in this application, on him executing and furnishing a bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees: Ten Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of
like amount, by the concerned police officer, and on condition that
he :-
(a)
shall cooperate with the investigation and shall, without failure or
delay, make himself available for interrogation whenever and wherever
required.
(b)
shall not in any manner, hamper or obstruct the investigation.
(c)
shall not either himself or through others and directly or indirectly
make any inducement, promise or threat of whatsoever nature to any
witness or anyone else concerned in the case or to any witness or
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and
shall not cause any harassment to the complainant.
(d)
shall remain present on 20.06.2011 before the
investigating /police officer of the Adalaj Police Station between
11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and then at any time as
informed and required by such officer and shall not leave the revenue
limit of District Vadodara.
(e) shall
not enter the limits of Savli.
(f) shall
remain present before the trial Court regularly as and when directed
and on the dates fixed.
(g) shall
not play any type of mischief with the evidence collected or yet to
be collected by the police and shall not try to influence, in any
manner, any witness or any person connected with the case and / or
acquainted with the facts of the case.
(h)
at the time of execution of bond, shall furnish his present and
permanent residential address to the investigating officer and to the
Court concerned and shall not change the residence/address till the
final disposal of the case or till further orders.
(i)
shall not leave India / State of Gujarat without the permission of
the Court and shall, if holding a passport, surrender and deposit the
same before the trial Court on or before 20.6.2011.
10. It
would be open to the investigating officer to file an application for
remand if he considers it just and proper and the competent Court
shall decide the same in accordance with law and on merits without
being influenced by this order or the observations made herein.
11.
Despite this order, 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 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 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.
12. It
is clarified that the observations in this order are only for limited
purpose of considering the request made in this application and are
purely tentative and prima facie and does not in any manner indicate
opinion of this Court about the allegations or merits of the case.
13. The
application is allowed. Rule made absolute. Direct service is
permitted.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
rakesh/
Page
6
Top