Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1924 (GUJ)

Monik @ Majnu Ramanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2016-09-02

PARESH UPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : PARESH UPADHYAY, J. This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2. The applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with C.R-I No. 170 of 2016 registered with the Sector - 7 Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court to the complaint and the nature of the allegation against the applicant and has submitted that, considering the totality the applicant be granted anticipatory bail. Learned advocate for the applicant has made serious grievance against the police authorities. The manner and method in which the applicant is treated, even during the pendency of this application, is also narrated to this Court. 4. On the other hand, learned APP has contested this application and has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted by him that, so far other grievances are concerned, needful is being done. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, and which is made available to the Court by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court finds that, this is the fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is noted that during the course of hearing of this application, the police arrested the applicant qua some other offence. The circumstances leading to that arrest were agitated before this Court by the applicant. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is also given a copy of the CD indicating that, the bonafide of one of the Police Official under the Administrative control of the concerned Investigating Officer needs to be looked into by the appropriate Authority. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has stated that the said issue is already taken up by the appropriate authority and needful is being done. Considering the totality, this Court finds that, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. 6. In view of above, the following order is passed. 6.1 This application is allowed. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has stated that the said issue is already taken up by the appropriate authority and needful is being done. Considering the totality, this Court finds that, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. 6. In view of above, the following order is passed. 6.1 This application is allowed. 6.2 It is directed that, in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with C.R-I No. 170 of 2016 registered with the Sector - 7 Police Station, Gandhinagar, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and one surety of the like amount, on the following conditions. (a) shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (c) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police. 6.3 At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while recording this order. 6.4 Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.