Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 947 (GUJ)

Jitendra @ Jitu Rajuji Chavda v. State of Gujarat

2018-08-03

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Rule. Learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 3. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR being Prohibition C.R. No. 5343 of 2018 registered with Khokhra Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 66(B), 65(A)(E), 116(B) of the Prohibition Act. 4. 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 Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. 6. I have considered the allegations levelled against the present applicant in the FIR considered the role played by the applicant. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the accused and punishment prescribed for the alleged offence, 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 . 8. Learned advocates for the parties do not press for further reasoned order. 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. 5343 of 2018 registered with Khokhra Police Station, Ahmedabad, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 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. 5343 of 2018 registered with Khokhra Police Station, Ahmedabad, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen 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 08/08/2018 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 the 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 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. 11. 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. 11. 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. The present application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.