Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 370 (GUJ)

Sunil Nagendra Tivari v. State of Gujarat

2019-04-10

VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2019
ORDER : Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering the averments made in the note for speaking to minutes, the same is allowed. Therefore in the order dated 08.04.2019 passed in an application for anticipatory bail, following condition shall be shown, “(g) the applicant and the company in which the applicant is working shall abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties.” Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction and issue fresh writ accordingly. Direct service is permitted. ORDER : Considering the averments made in the application, it is revealed that instead of anticipatory bail order, the order reflects about the regular bail. Therefore, the present note for speaking to minutes stands allowed. The order dated 02.04.2019 should be now read as under, “1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I–24/2019 registered with Ankleshwar Rural Police Station, Bharuch for the offenses punishable under Sections 304 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice. 3. 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 further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. 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. 5. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. 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. 5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. This Court has also considered the following aspects, (i) it is contended by learned advocate for the applicant that in the incident in question, the applicant has sustained injury; (ii) it is further contended that ingredients of Section 304 of Indian Penal Code are not made out, at the most, it can be said that the ingredients of Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code are made out. It is further pointed out from the material placed on record that statutory compensation is paid to the family of the deceased and over and above the same, Rs.3,00,000/-is paid to the wife of deceased Vijaysingh and Rs.1,00,000/-is paid to the wife of deceased Anilsingh; (iii) It is further submitted that agreement is entered into between the wife of deceased Vijaysingh as well as Anilsingh, copy of which is produced on record and as per the said agreement, the company has taken the responsibility of education of daughters of the deceased Vijaysingh till the year 2024; (iv) it is further contended that private complaint is also filed by the Factory Inspector under the provisions of the Factories Act; (v) learned counsel appearing for the applicant has further submitted, under the instructions, that the company as well as the applicant will abide by the agreement which is entered into between the parties; Therefore in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. 7. 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. 7. 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., reported at [2011] 1 SCC 694, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665 . 8. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a FIR being C.R. No. I– 24/2019 registered with Ankleshwar Rural Police Station, Bharuch on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand 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 concerned Police Station on 15.04.2019 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 till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Sessions Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Sessions Court within a week; and (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it 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 applicant. 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. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. 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 in the present order. 11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.” Therefore the office to issue writ accordingly. Direct service is permitted.