Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1872 (GUJ)

Mohsin Ayubsha Diwan v. State of Gujarat

2016-09-01

P.P.BHATT

body2016
ORDER : P.P BHATT, J. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with First Information Report being C.R No. I-53 of 2016 registered with Gorwa Police Station, District Vadodara City, for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Patel for the applicant submitted that that the FIR is filed against unknown person and the applicant is not named in the FIR, but subsequently during the course of investigation he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offences. It is further submitted there is recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the applicant, but there is no criminal antecedence against the present applicant. According to learned advocate for the applicant though in the statement made before Police the applicant has admitted his guilt, but there is no evidentiary value of such statement in the eye of law as the same is inadmissible piece of evidence. Moreover, investigation is over and charge-sheet is submitted, and therefore, now there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Learned advocate for the applicant further submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the applicant, in the event of moving] an application for release of Muddamal i.e amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- by the complainant, the present applicant will not oppose or raise any objection against such application, but it should not be construed as admission of guilt on the part of the applicant. Therefore, considering the nature of allegations and gravity of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the application for grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has further submitted that there is a prima facie case against the present applicant. Therefore, the present application may be rejected. 5. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the application for grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has further submitted that there is a prima facie case against the present applicant. Therefore, the present application may be rejected. 5. Regard being had to the above submissions, in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature and gravity of accusation made against the applicant in the First Information Report and other charge-sheet papers and considering the fact that there is no criminal antecedence against the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the applicant for grant of bail. Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R No. I-53 of 2016 registered with Gorwa Police Station, District Vadodara City, on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, and subject to the following conditions, that the applicant shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on every Monday of each English calendar month for a period of three months and thereafter, alternate Monday for a period of six months, between 11:00 a.m and 2:00 p.m; [f] furnish latest and permanent address of residence to the Investigating Officer, and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond, and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; [g] if the original complainant moves an application before the concerned trial Court for getting the Muddamal of Rs. 1,50,000/- looted by the applicant, the concerned trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law, but the applicant shall not object the said application for release of Muddamal of Rs. 1,50.000/. 1,50,000/- looted by the applicant, the concerned trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law, but the applicant shall not object the said application for release of Muddamal of Rs. 1,50.000/. In the event of grant of such permission, the same shall not be construed as admission of guilt on the part of the applicant, as it is being done without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the applicant. 6. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the learned Lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. At the trial, learned trial court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature, qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. 7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.