Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/8301/2010 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8301 of 2010
=====================================================
TEJASBHAI
MAHENDRABHAI & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=====================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YN RAVANI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR UA TRIVEDI ADDITIONAL
SPUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
R NITIN T GANDHI for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 02/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
In
the facts and circumstances of the case and by consent of both the
sides, this matter is taken up for hearing today.
This
is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in connection with the FIR bearing CR No. I 39
of 2010 registered with Patadi Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 365, 344, 120-B
and 114 of the IPC.
Mr.
Ravani learned advocate for the applicants submitted that on perusal
of the FIR at Annexure-A to the application, the applicants have not
played active role in the commission of the offences and are
innocent and they have wrongly been arraigned in the offences. Since
in past many transactions were finalized through the brokers, there
was a reason for applicant to doubt the genuineness of the
transaction and the power of attorney and for the execution of the
sale deeds, full consideration was paid and the applicants hale from
a very affluent family. Therefore, he submitted that it is a fit case
to release the present applicants on anticipatory bail.
Mr.Trivedi,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State submitted
that considering the role attributed to the applicants which is
reflected in the FIR at Annexure-A to the applicants and the nature
of offences in which the applicants are involved as well as the
manner in which the offences are committed by the applicants, the
application deserves to be rejected.
Having
considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the FIR at
Annexure-A to the applicants, the applicants are booked for the
offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 365, 344,
120-B and 114 of the IPC and it is established from the record that
there no role attributed to the applicants as reflected from the FIR.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and without
entering into merits of the case, I am inclined to exercise my
discretion in favour of the applicants.
In
the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with CR No. I
39 of 2010 registered with Patadi Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 365, 344, 120-B
and 114 of the IPC, they shall be released on bail on their executing
a bond of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five thousand only] each with one surety
of the like amount on the following conditions that they shall:
[a] co-operate
with the investigation and make themselves available for
interrogation whenever and wherever required.
[b] shall
remain present at the concerned Police Station on 6.8.2010 between
11.00 AM to 12.00 PM.
[c] shall
not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
[d] at
the time of execution of bond, furnish their residential addresses 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] not
leave India without the permission of the Court and, if holding a
passport, they shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within
a week;
[f] not
obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief
with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
It
would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for
remand if he considers it proper and just; and the competent Court
would decide it on merits.
This
order will hold good, if the applicants are arrested at any time
within 90 days from today. The order for release on bail will remain
operative only for a period of ten days from the date of his arrest.
Thereafter, it will be open to the applicants to make a fresh
application for being enlarged on bail in usual course, when it comes
up before the competent Court, will be decided in accordance with
law, having regard to all the attending circumstances and the
materials available at the relevant time, without being influenced by
the fact that anticipatory bail was granted.
With
these directions, this application is allowed. Rule is made
absolute. Direct Service is permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED,J.)
ynvyas
Top