Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1544 (GUJ)

Anilbhai Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2017-09-04

G.R.UDHWANI

body2017
ORDER : G.R UDHWANI, J. 1. This application is filed seeking bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 306, 384, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code for which FIR came to be registered at C.R No. I- 322 of 2012 with Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the FIR, wherein, a reference is made to two suicide notes allegedly written by the deceased making grievance about harassment and black mailing as also threat to kidnap his wife and children and extortion, execution of false affidavit, demanding money etc., against several persons including the applicant herein. Learned counsel while relying upon State of Kerala v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 639 submitted that even if the allegations made against the petitioner under Section 306 of IPC were taken at face value, prima facie, it will not make out the offence of abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC. 3. He would contend that offence under Section 384, even if established would fetch maximum punishment of three years imprisonment. Learned counsel, therefore, urged for the anticipatory bail. 4. Strenuously opposing the application, the learned APP while referring to various documents submitted that, the petitioner under the guise of being a journalist has established Anti Corruption Council and under such guise has been reportedly blackmailing the people; and the petitioner was blackmailing deceased for extortion. 5. In response to the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the letter dated 19.07.2008 addressed by the petitioner to the Director of Anti Corruption Bureau making allegations about unaccounted wealth with one Pravinchandra Jaiswal against whom eventually the FIR was lodged and anticipatory bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 17160 of 2012 moved by the said person came to be rejected by this Court. Learned counsel contended that thus, the actions of the petitioner in running such Council and lodging the complaint are the bonafide acts. He also submitted that the deceased had indulged into irregularities during his employment as Sales Tax Officer and details of such irregularities are contained in the list of Scrutiny/audit/provisional assessment task, which was pointed out by the petitioner. Learned counsel contended that thus, the actions of the petitioner in running such Council and lodging the complaint are the bonafide acts. He also submitted that the deceased had indulged into irregularities during his employment as Sales Tax Officer and details of such irregularities are contained in the list of Scrutiny/audit/provisional assessment task, which was pointed out by the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner on instructions states that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including impositions of conditions with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of petitioner-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. 6. Considering the above broad facts and without assigning reasons in details, as the parties do not invite reasons for the same, this Court is inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C in absence of necessity of the petitioner for custodial interrogation. 7. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner herein in connection with FIR registered at C.R No. I-322 of 2012 at Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 7. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner herein in connection with FIR registered at C.R No. I-322 of 2012 at Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) with one surety of the like amount on the following conditions that he shall: (a) co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) remain present at the concerned Police Station on 07.09.2017 between 11.00 a.m and 2.00 p.m; (c) 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/them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (d) not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide the same on merits; 8. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for Police remand of the petitioner. The petitioner shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the petitioner, even if, remanded to the Police custody, upon completion of such period of Police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. 9. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima-facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the petitioner on bail. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. 10. Direct service is permitted.