Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 889 (GUJ)

Thakor Jashvantji Vithaji v. State Of Gujarat

2018-07-23

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned PP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State. 2. Heard Mr. Nikhil S Vyas, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned PP for the respondent-State. 3. By way of the preferring the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being Prohibition C.R.No.III-131 of 2018 registered with Visnagar City Police Station, Mahesana, for the offences punishable under Sections 65(E), 116(B), 81 and 92(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. 4. Mr. Nikhil S Vyas, learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicant is 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 applicant to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. 6. Mr. Mitesh Amin, Learned 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 leveled against the applicant in the FIR and perused the papers of investigation and considered the role attributed to the applicant. 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 applicant. 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 applicant. 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 & Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 565 . 9. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR being Prohibition C.R.No.III-131 of 2018 registered with Visnagar City Police Station, Mahesana, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands only) with one surety of like amount, on the following conditions: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 30.07.2018 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.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 him 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 address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change his 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 passport, shall surrender the same before the Trial Court within a week. 9. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. 9. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to file an application for police remand of the applicant to the competent Magistrate, if he thinks it just and proper and learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. The applicant 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 applicant, 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 applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 11. Direct service is permitted.