Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1928 (GUJ)

Vikramsinh Velubhai Solanki 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. 58 of 2016 registered with the Bechraji Police Station, District: Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 395, 427, 435, 120B, 396, 397 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 pf the Gujarat Police Act and Sections 3 and 7 of the Damage to Public Property 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. It is submitted by him that the applicant is the Sarpanch of the village, it is he who had drawn the attention of the police authorities in advance about the likelihood of the tension in the village, which ultimately came true. It is further submitted that at the time of incident, the applicant was present along with very senior police officer, appealing to the crowd to calm down. It is submitted that only for the political reasons, the applicant is named in the FIR. It is submitted by him that, considering the totality the applicant be granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contested this application. He has made available to this Court, the material so far gathered during the course of investigation. It is submitted by him that, this application be dismissed. 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. The factors which have weighed with this Court are inter alia as under. 5.1 Number of persons are named in the FIR. They are 75 in numbers. The applicant is the Sarpanch of the village. The circumstances need to be seen in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 . 5.1 Number of persons are named in the FIR. They are 75 in numbers. The applicant is the Sarpanch of the village. The circumstances need to be seen in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 . 5.2 It is the case of the applicant and there is material in support thereof to indicate that, as the Sarpanch of the village, it is the applicant, who had drawn the attention of the police authorities in advance about the likelihood of the tension in the village, which ultimately came true. There is also material to indicate that, at the time of the incident, the applicant was present along with very senior police officer, appealing to the crowd to calm down. This satisfaction is recorded after undertaking the following exercise. 5.3 Considering the seriousness of the matter, this Court had, vide order dated 19.08.2016, directed the applicant to present himself for questioning before the concerned Investigating Officer. This was done. Since it was the case of the applicant that at the time of incident, he was present with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, appealing to the crowd to calm down, further questioning of the applicant was also ordered by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2016 It was directed that the statement be recorded in presence of the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police. This is also done on 01.09.2016 Learned Additional public Prosecutor has made available to this Court, a copy of the said statement. This Court has taken note of the contents thereof. 5.4 Having considered the material on record, in totality this Court finds that, the applicant needs to be protected. 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. 58 of 2016 registered with the Bechraji Police Station, District: Mehsana, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) and one surety of the like amount, on the following conditions. 6.2 It is directed that, in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with C.R-I No. 58 of 2016 registered with the Bechraji Police Station, District: Mehsana, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five 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.