Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1167 (GUJ)

SHAILESHBHAI JASHBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2018-10-06

A.Y.KOGJE

body2018
ORDER: 1. In response to the notice, respondent No.2-Arvindbhai Manabhai Vankar is personally present in the Court. 2. This Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 14 of the Atrocities Act and Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR registered at C.R. No.II-130 of 2018 before Anklav Police Station for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that considering the nature of offence, the appellant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has opposed this appeal and granting anticipatory bail to the appellant looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP submitted that in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, anticipatory bail may not be granted. 5. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the investigation papers and have also taken into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the appellant– accused and without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Considering the judgment of this Court in the case of Hareshbhai Dhirubhai Danger Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2017 (1) GCD, 378, wherein it is held that anticipatory bail appeal can be considered in the offence related to Atrocities Act after undertaking exercise as contemplated in the judgment, the appeal deserves consideration. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. as reported at [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665 . 6. as reported at [2011] 1 SCC 6941, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors., reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665 . 6. Following aspects are also considered:- I. Submission of learned advocate for the appellant that the offence is outcome of the demand for labour charges by the complainant which is disputed and therefore, the present FIR is registered. II. Submission of learned advocate for the appellant that only with a view to twist the arm of the appellant, under whom the respondent No.2 is working, the allegation is made, whereas no such incident has taken place. Even from the allegations made in the FIR, it does not appear that derogatory words have been uttered in full public view so as to attract the provisions of Atrocities Act. III. Submission of learned advocate for the appellant that the appellant shall pay the labour dues to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,19,500/- by cheque which is handed over today and accepted by respondent No.2. The appellant assures the Court that cheque shall be honoured as and when present. IV. Learned APP under the instructions of the IO is unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the appellant. 7. Learned Advocate for the appellant on instructions states that the appellant 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 appeal before the competent court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such appeal by the Investigating Agency, the right of appellant accused to oppose such appeal on merits may be kept open. 8. He would further submit that upon filing of such appeal by the Investigating Agency, the right of appellant accused to oppose such appeal on merits may be kept open. 8. In the result, the present appeal is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest of the appellant herein in connection with FIR registered at C.R. No.II-130 of 2018 before Aanklav Police Station, the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount on the following conditions that he shall: (a) cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) remain present at the concerned Police Station on 10.10.2018 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 appeal for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide the same on merits; 9. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for Police remand of the appellant. The appellant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such appeal 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 appeal 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 appellant, 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. 10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima-facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the appellant on bail. 11. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Direct Service is permitted.