Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1998 (GUJ)

Khalil Ahmed Pirbax Shaikh v. State of Gujarat

2016-09-07

PARESH UPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : PARESH UPADHYAY, J. This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR being I-CR No. 56 of 2016 registered with the Gomtipur Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 454, 354, 506(2), 504 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The provision of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is also invoked in the matter. 3. Notice was issued to the complainant, so that the say of the complainant can also be taken into consideration. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has made available to this Court, the material available with the police Authorities, substantial part of which is on record. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material which is made available by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the picture which has emerged before this Court is as under. 5.1 There is civil dispute between the parties. The prayer clause of the civil suit and the grievance voiced in the complaint in question is almost identical. 5.2 The complainant-lady is working as a Head Constable in the Ahmedabad Police Force. 5.3 The incident is claimed to have occurred on 12.11.2015 She had given complainant to the police at the relevant time also. The police Inspector had examined the said complaint and found that it was a false complaint and that it was given just to arm twist the applicants in the civil dispute. The report in that regard, dated 29.03.2016 by the Police Inspector of Gomtipur Police Station is on record. 5.4 The statement of the complainant (dated 12.11.2015) before the police Authorities qua the incident in question is also on record. In substance it is to the effect that, since the police authorities have now undertaken that the accused side would not put the door on the disputed side, she does not intend to pursue the complaint. In substance, according to the complainant, the application for stay in the civil litigation, which was not allowed, stood allowed by the Police Authorities in favour of the complainant and that is how she was satisfied. 5.5 It is under these circumstances, the complaint in question needs to be examined by this Court, which is filed on 30.06.2016 6. In substance, according to the complainant, the application for stay in the civil litigation, which was not allowed, stood allowed by the Police Authorities in favour of the complainant and that is how she was satisfied. 5.5 It is under these circumstances, the complaint in question needs to be examined by this Court, which is filed on 30.06.2016 6. To enable the Investigating Authorities to look into the matter from this perception as well, it would be appropriate that the applicant No. 1, against whom the complainant has serious grievance, is directed to remain present before the concerned Investigating Officer for questioning. 7. In view of above, it is directed that the applicant No. 1 shall remain present before the concerned Investigating Officer for questioning on 09.09.2016 8. List for further consideration on 15.09.2016 9. It is ordered that, till the next date of hearing, the applicants shall not be arrested in connection with the offence in question. 10. Direct service is permitted.