Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 89 (GUJ)

BHARTIBEN v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2019-02-04

VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2019
JUDGMENT VIPUL M PANCHOLI, J. 1. This application is filed for relaxing condition No.8 imposed in the order dated 17.10.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.615 of 2013 by the Sessions Court, whereby the Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the applicant and learned APP Mr. K.P.Raval for the respondent State. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that FIR being C.R.No.I-218 of 2013 is registered against applicant and other co-accused under Sections 376, 377, 344, 342, 346, 504(2), 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the applicant filed application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being Criminal Misc. Application No.615 of 2013 before the Sessions Court, Gandhinagar. The Sessions Court granted said application and released the applicant on anticipatory bail on certain terms and conditions. Learned advocate has referred the said order, copy of which is produced at page 11 of the compilation. It is submitted that as per condition No.8, the applicant shall not leave the territory of State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Court. 4. It is submitted that the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, case being Sessions Case No.34 of 2013 is pending before the Sessions Court, Gandhinagar. It is contended that the applicant wants to visit Prayagraj wherein Kumbh Mela is started. Applicant wants to visit said Kumbh Mela and therefore condition No.8 imposed by the Sessions Court be relaxed and the applicant may be permitted to visit the said place for stipulated time limit. 5. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. K.P.Raval has opposed this application and contended that trial is at crucial stage. One witness Mr. Rahul Ramkumar Sachan is missing from 29.11.2016 and two other witnesses Amrutbhai Gulabchand Prajapati and Akhil Nareshchandra Gupta are killed by someone and therefore applicant may not be permitted to go outside the territory of State of Gujarat. It is further submitted that another witness Varshaben, wife of Akhil Nareshchandra Gupta is residing at Muzzafarnagar and therefore if the applicant is permitted to visit Prayagraj, there are all chances that evidence of said witness will be tampered with. It is, therefore, urged that this application may not be entertained. 6. In response to the aforesaid submissions canvassed by learned APP, learned advocate Mr. It is, therefore, urged that this application may not be entertained. 6. In response to the aforesaid submissions canvassed by learned APP, learned advocate Mr. Dagli has pointed out from the material placed on record that Sessions Court has relaxed condition No.8 vide order dated 26.04.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.427 of 2016, whereby the applicant was permitted to leave the limits of State of Gujarat and travel outside Gujarat to attend Ardh Kumbh Mela at Haridwar, Utter Pradesh from 27.04.2016 to 02.05.2016. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli thereafter pointed out another order dated 29.11.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.1189 of 2016, whereby the Sessions Court modified condition No.8 and thereby permitted the applicant to travel outside Gujarat in various States as stated in the said application to help and assist her mother Laxmiben for medical treatment from 29.11.2016 to 16.12.2016. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli thereafter referred the order dated 16.05.2016 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.11363 of 2016, whereby this Court has once again modified condition No.18 and thereby applicant was permitted to visit Sinhasth Kumbh Mela at Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh between 18.05.2016 to 23.05.2016. It is further submitted that applicant has complied with all the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court as well as this Court while permitting the applicant to go outside the territory of State of Gujarat and reported in time. He, therefore, urged that relief as prayed for in this application be granted. 8. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the parties. I have also gone through the material produced on record. This application is opposed only on the ground that two witnesses are killed on 11.01.2015 and 10.06.2014 and therefore this Court may not permit the applicant to visit outside the territory of State of Gujarat. Learned APP has, thereafter, opposed this application on the ground that another witness Mr. Rahul Ramkumar Sachan is missing on 29.11.2016 and one witness Varshaben is residing at Muzzafarnagar, who is yet to be examined and therefore this Court may not entertain this application. However, if the aforesaid dates are carefully examined, it is revealed that Sessions Court has granted permission to the applicant to go outside the territory limits of Gujarat vide order dated 26.04.2016 i.e. much after 11.01.2015 and 10.06.2014. However, if the aforesaid dates are carefully examined, it is revealed that Sessions Court has granted permission to the applicant to go outside the territory limits of Gujarat vide order dated 26.04.2016 i.e. much after 11.01.2015 and 10.06.2014. It is further required to be noted that thereafter on 29.11.2016, Sessions Court granted permission in favour of the applicant to travel outside Gujarat in various States. The said order was also passed after two witnesses were killed. Even this Court passed an order on 16.05.2016 much after the aforesaid incident and therefore the apprehension shown by learned APP is not well founded. It is required to be noted that applicant has reported in time as per the directions given by this Court and not misused the liberty. 9. Another contention is that witness Varshaben, who is yet to be examined, is residing at Muzzafarnagar and Prayagraj is near to Muzzafarnagar. However, when inquired, it is reported that Muzzafarnagar is 784.6 kilometers away from Prayagraj where the applicant wants to visit for Kumbh Mela. 10. In view of the aforesaid factual aspects, when the Sessions Court has twice and this Court has once relaxed condition No.8 in favour of the applicant and applicant has not misused the said orders and reported in time, there is no reason to refuse the relief as prayed for in this application. 11. Accordingly, application is partly allowed. Condition No.8 imposed upon the applicant by learned Sessions Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.615 of 2013 is relaxed and applicant is permitted to go outside the territory of State of Gujarat to visit Prayagraj for Kumbh Mela during the period between 08.02.2019 to 20.02.2019 (13 days) on her executing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lac (Rupees One Lac only) before the concerned trial Court and on usual terms and conditions. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.