Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/11302/2008 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11302 of 2008
In
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10808 of 2008
=========================================================
VANDANABEN
JAYANTILAL PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
NS SHETH for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR BHAVESH A PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR RC KODEKAR, APP for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 23/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. RULE.
Shri R.C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives
service of rule on behalf of the State. In the facts and
circumstances of the case and by consent of both the sides, this
matter is taken up for hearing today.
2. 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? 60
of 2008 registered with Langhanaj Police Station, Mehsana for the
offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 114 of the
IPC read with Sections 12(1) Clause (a), (b) and (c) of the Passport
Act.
3. Learned
advocate for the applicant submitted that considering the role
attributed to the applicant which is reflected in the FIR at
Annexure-A to the application, it is a fit case to enlarge the
applicant on anticipatory bail. Even on perusal of the order passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 401 of 2008, the learned Judge has not considered
the arguments canvassed on behalf of the applicant and passed the
order directing the Investigating Officer to give notice of 9 (nine)
days in connection with CR No. I? 60 of 2008 to the complainant if
the arrest is required to be made. Thus, the learned advocate for
the applicant submitted that the learned Judge has not passed the
reasoned order and instead of passing the reasoned order, the
learned Judge has only given directions to the Investigating Officer
to issue the notice. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the learned advocate for the applicant submitted that
the prayer as set out in the application may be granted.
4. Shri
R.C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the
State submitted that considering the role attributed to the applicant
which is reflected in the FIR at Annexure-A to the application, it
is not a fit case to entertain the application and the application
deserves to be rejected.
5. I
have heard the learned advocate for the applicant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State at length and in great
detail. Considering the averments made in the application and the
FIR produced at Annexure-A to the application and considering the
fact that the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court, vide order dated 14/08/2008 in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 10808/2008 at the relevant time for the offences
punishable under 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and
considering the fact that subsequently, the charge for the offence
under Section 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code has been added and
considering the role attributed to the applicant, prima facie, I am
inclined to to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant.
6. In
the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with FIR bearing
CR No. I? 60 of 2008 registered with Langhanaj Police Station,
Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420
and 114 of the IPC read with Sections 12(1) Clause (a), (b) and (c)
of the Passport Act, she shall be released on bail on executing a
bond of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand only] with one surety of the
like amount on the following conditions that she shall:
[a] co-operate
with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation
whenever required.
[b] shall
remain present at the concerned Police Station on 29th
September, 2008 between 9.00 AM to 3.00 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 her residential 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] not
leave India without the permission of the Court and, if holding a
passport, she 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;
7. 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.
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 ten days from the date of her arrest.
Thereafter, it will be open to the applicant to make a fresh
application for being enlarged on bail in usual course, which, 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.
9. With
these directions, this application is allowed.
Rule
is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top