Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9688/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9688 of 2011
=================================================
RAJESHBHAI
MAGANLAL PATEL & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
PM LAKHANI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.MRS RP LAKHANI for Applicant(s) :
1 - 2.MR RH RUPARELIYA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.MS. DIMPLE L. JOSHI
for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MS ML SHAH APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 14/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Learned
advocate for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw this
application, at this stage, qua applicant No.1. Permission is
granted. This application stands disposed of as withdrawn qua
applicant No.1.
Rule.
Learned APP, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent –
State.
Learned
counsel for the applicant submits that applicant No.2 is a lady
accused and she had tried to save the deceased by hospitalizing him.
It is further submitted that the applicant has roots in the
society, will not flee from justice and will cooperate with the
investigation as and when called for. It is further submitted that
son of the applicant is studying in Standard-X and considering the
overall facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations
levelled against the applicant are Magistrate triable, the applicant
may be granted anticipatory bail.
Heard
Learned APP for the respondent – State.
Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the
case and taking into consideration the facts that, applicant No.2 is
a lady accused, who had tried to save the deceased by hospitalizing;
son of the applicant is studying Standard-X; the case is a
Magistrate triable; and considering other attending circumstances,
without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, 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 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.
Learned
counsel 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 applicant No.2 herein being arrested pursuant to FIR
being CR No.II-99/2011 with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot for the
offences punishable under sections 498 and 114 of the IPC, the
applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of like
amount on following conditions :-
[a] shall
cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for
interrogation whenever required.
[b] shall
remain present at concerned Police Station on 19.7.2011 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
applicant 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.
At
the trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by the prima
facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant
on bail.
Rule
made absolute. Application is disposed of accordingly.
Direct
service is permitted.
(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)
*pvv
Top