Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1197 (GUJ)

ZALA VARSHABA KANUJI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2018-10-12

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2018
JUDGMENT R. P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. Rule. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State. 2. Heard Mr.Manish Joshi, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr. L.B.Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent-State. 3. By way of the preferring the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants seeks grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R.No.I-67 of 2018 registered with Visnagar Taluka Police Station, Mahesana, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Mr. Manish Joshi, learned advocate for the applicants submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicants are available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Learned advocate for the applicants on instructions states that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to 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 applicants to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. 6. Mr. L.B.Dabhi, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. 7. I have considered the allegations levelled against the applicants in the FIR and perused the papers of investigation and considered the role attributed to the applicants. This Court has considered the fact that the applicants are being lady and the entire case is based upon the documentary evidence. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties and perusing the record of the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 694 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and Others. reported in, (1980) 2 SCC 565 . 9. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicants herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being C.R.No.I-67 of 2018 registered with Visnagar Taluka Police Station, Mahesana, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousands only) each with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required; (b) For their interrogation, they shall remain present before the Investigating Officer at the concerned Police Station from 22.10.2018 to 25.10.2018 between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.; (c) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (d) shall 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) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the addresses to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change their residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and, if having passports, shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week. 10. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicants to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. 10. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicants to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicants 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. It is clarified that the applicants, 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. 11. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicants on bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.