Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 688 (GUJ)

JAVEDKHAN JEEVANKHAN BALOCH v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2017-03-27

N.V.ANJARIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : N.V. ANJARIA, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent State. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application was taken up for final consideration today itself. 2. It is in connection with the First Information Report bearing Crime Register No. I-6 of 2017 registered with Kakoshi Police Station, Patan, on 08.02.2017 against the present applicant-accused for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, that this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is presented by the applicant. 3. The first informant stated in the FIR that the marriage of his sister had taken place before 12 years and there were three children out of the wed-lock. It was stated that whenever she used to come to parental house, she had complained about suspicious nature of her in-laws. It was alleged that in-laws were quarreling with her. On fateful day, she died having taken poison. The complainant stated that he was informed about the incident and he rushed to Dharpul village, where the victim was admitted in the hospital. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent State. 5. In the FIR itself, a statement has been coming forth from the complainant that he was told by the victim that she had been suffering from fever and she had asked her nephew to bring medicine for fever. However, by mistake she consumed other medicines, which was poison. Having noticed the said aspect emerging from the allegations in the FIR and having further perused the investigational papers including dying declaration in the said context and furtherance, a clear case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. The court also took note of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satllingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 2011 SC 312 ], and in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [ AIR 2012 SC 1676 ] and other decisions in which parameters to be considered by the court for grant of anticipatory bail have been set out, and applied those parameters to the facts of the case. Since the court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant accused, even as learned APP made submissions to object the grant of bail, he stated that he would not invite detailed reasons. Learned advocate for the applicant also did not press for reasons. 6.1 In the facts and circumstances obtained and for the reasons recorded above, personal liberty of the applicant-accused deserves to be accorded primacy over his forced arrest. The investigational needs could be balanced by imposing appropriate conditions to be observed by the applicant-accused including the condition of keeping the right of the police open to ask for remand of the applicant-accused, if required. 7. As a result of above facts and aspects, present application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicant's arrest in connection with the F.I.R. bearing registration No. I-6 of 2017 registered with Kakoshi Police Station, Patan, on 08.02.2017, he shall be released forthwith on condition of his execution a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only). 7.1 The anticipatory bail granted by this Court shall be further governed and regulated by the following conditions, [i] The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation. He will make himself available for interrogation and for all investigative purposes whenever required; [ii] The applicant shall not obstruct the process of investigation in any manner. He shall not directly or indirectly induce threat or extend promise to any witness so as to dissuade and prevent such witness from disclosing such facts as may be required, to the Court or Police Officer; [iii] The applicant shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish full address of his residence and stay to the Investigating Officer as well as to the Court concerned. He shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the Court concerned during the pendency of the prosecution in the criminal case; [iv] The applicant shall not travel beyond the territory of the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Court concerned; [v] The applicant shall surrender passport, if any he is holding, before the Court concerned immediately; [vi] The applicant shall appear before Kakoshi Police Station, Patan on 31.03.2017 between 11.00 am and 02.00 pm.; [vii] It shall remain open to the Investigating Officer to seek and file application for remand of the applicant, if in his discretion he considers the asking for remand of the applicant to be just and proper for the purpose of investigational needs. If such application for remand is made by the Investigating Officer, the learned Magistrate concern would consider the same on merits without being influenced by the anticipatory bail granted. 8. It is clarified that despite this order, the investigating agency is not precluded from applying before the competent Magistrate for police remand of the applicant. It is further provided that the applicant shall remain present before the Magistrate concerned on the first day of such application, if made, and on all such subsequent occasions as may be directed by the learned Magistrate in such proceedings. This would be sufficient to treat the accused as in judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the application for remand by the prosecution. 8.1 This liberty available to the prosecution to seek remand shall be without prejudice to the rights of the accused to contend against or to seek stay against the remand. It is further clarified that the applicant even if remanded to the police custody, after completion of the remand period; shall be set at liberty immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order, to be complied with. 8.2 It is clarified that the observations made in this order are for the purpose of granting pre-arrest protection only. It is further clarified that the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order and the same shall be treated for the purpose of dealing with the present application only. 9. The present application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute.