Sunilkumar vs State on 27 September, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Sunilkumar vs State on 27 September, 2010
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/11084/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11084 of 2010
 

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


 

SUNILKUMAR
AMRUTLAL BRAHMBHATT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

========================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR NIRAV C
THAKKAR for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR M.R. MENGDEY, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 27/09/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. The present
application has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail under sec.
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with C.R. No.
I-25/2010 registered with Nadiad Town Police Station, for the
alleged offences under sec. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and sec.
6 and 66 of the IT Act.

2. Learned advocate Mr.
Nirav Thakker submitted that he is not named in the FIR but he is
proposed to be arraigned on the basis of the statement of the
co-accused which is reflected in the impugned order passed by the
Sessions Court, Nadiad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 628 of 2010.
He submitted that statement of the co-accused may not be admissible.
Further, learned advocate Mr. Thakker submitted that his role is only
working as an intermediary and the other co-accused with similar role
has been released as per the order passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 9067 of 2010 by this court by order dated 17.8.2010.
He therefore submitted that the present application may be allowed.

3. Learned APP Mr.
Mengdey resisted the application submitting that the statement of the
co-accused would be admissible at this stage.

4. Having heard learned
advocate Mr. Thakker and learned APP Mr. Mengdey and having regard to
the nature of offence alleged, the role attributed and considering
the fact that the other co-accused has been released as stated above,
the present application deserves to be allowed.

5. The application is
accordingly allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail
in the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No. I-25/2010
registered with Nadiad Town Police Station in respect of the offence
alleged against him on his/their executing a personal bond of Rs.
5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each with one solvent surety for
the like amount and on further conditions that he shall :

(a) remain present
before the trial court regularly as and when directed on the dates
fixed;

(b) remain present at
the concerned Police Station on 30.9.2010 between 11.00 am and 2.00
pm.

(c ) make himself
available for interrogation by the police officer whenever and
wherever required.

(d) not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any 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;

(e) not to obstruct or
hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the
evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

(f) at the time of
executing the bond, furnish his address to the I.O. and the courts
concerned, and shall not change his residence till the final disposal
of the case or till further orders;

(g) not to leave India
without the permission of the court and if having a passport, shall
deposit the same before the trial court within a week;

7. It would be open to
the I.O. to file an application for remand if he considers it proper
and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits.

8. This order will hold
good if the applicant is arrested at any time within 90 days from
today. The order for release on bail will remain operative only for
a period of 10 days from the date of his arrest during which it will
be open to the applicant to make a fresh application for being
enlarged on bail in usual course which, when it comes before the
competent court, will be disposed of in accordance with law having
regard to all the attending circumstances and the materials available
at the relevant time uninfluenced by the act that anticipatory bail
was granted.

Rule is made absolute.

D.S. permitted.

(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.)

(hn)

   

Top

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *