Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2389/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2389 of 2011
=================================================
SAMELBHAI
BUDHYABHAI VALVI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
KIRIT J MACWAN for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR AJ DESAI APP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 24/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
RULE.
Learned APP, Mr. A.J. Desai 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.24/2010 with Ahwa Police Station, District Dang for the
offences punishable under Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code and U/s. 26(1)(F) and 41(2) of Indian Forest Act.
Mr.
Kirit J. Macwan learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that
involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime is on the basis of
a statement of the co-accused recorded during course of further
investigation. It is further submitted that the applicant is a
farmer and doing miscellaneous agricultural work as a labourer and
the other co-accused are already enlarged on bail by this Court and
considering the above, by imposing suitable conditions, the
applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
Heard
learned APP for the respondent-State.
Considering
overall aspects and likelihood of the availability of the applicant
during course of trial and the fact that the applicant is a casual
agricultural labourer belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community, I
deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438
of the Code.
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.
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 herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being
I-C.R. No.24/2010 with Ahwa Police Station, District Dang, 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 the concerned Police Station on 27th
February, 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 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.
Rule
made absolute. The application is disposed of accordingly.
(Anant
S. Dave, J.)
*pvv
Top